Careful with your e-mail

THE STIFFEST punishment for a food poisoning case in the United States was imposed recently by a federal jury on Stewart Parnell, former chief executive of the now shuttered Peanut Company of America.

He was sentenced to 28 years in prison for knowingly shipping peanut butter contaminated with salmonella bacteria to customers and for faking the results of laboratory tests intended to screen for salmonella.

The food poisoning, which happened in 2008 and 2009, caused nine deaths and sickened hundreds more. It gave rise to one of the largest food recalls in the US and resulted in the closure of the company.

The evidence showed that the factory from which the contaminated products came from was dirty and infested with cockroaches and rodents that bred the deadly bacteria.

The investigators also discovered e-mail and records showing food that was confirmed by laboratory tests to contain salmonella was shipped to customers, and fake records were used to indicate that salmonella screenings were negative.

It does not come as a surprise that e-mail played a significant role in proving Parnell’s culpability for food poisoning. The contents of the exchange of e-mail among the company officials were like statements that came straight from the horse’s mouth.

Access

In many legal jurisdictions, e-mail is considered hard evidence that can be used in court with almost absolute success for or against the person to which it is attributed.

There are already established procedures to trace the authorship and source of an e-mail and these methods have gained wide acceptance.

Although an e-mail sent can, in some instances, be recalled or erased from the sender’s facility, it nevertheless leaves a footprint that allows its recovery through some computer program.

In denying authorship of an e-mail, the alibi often used is someone else gained access through some devious or unauthorized means to the password of the account from which it was sent.

But it’s not easy to give credence to this defense because passwords are supposed to be kept confidential.

The account owner who fails or neglects to keep it under lock and key can be held accountable for the consequences of his failure or negligence.

Incriminating e-mail has been the “smoking gun” for several players in the US stock market who have been prosecuted and jailed for insider trading, stock manipulation and other prohibited stock transactions.

Firewalls

In the belief that firewalls or other forms of protective software can ensure the confidentiality of their e-mail, some users do not watch their words in communicating their thoughts to the party at the other end of the line.

They think their e-mail system is leak proof, or that anything they write in their exchange of communications with third parties will remain unread by people who are not on the address list.

A case in point is the stockbroker of a US investment bank that shut down in 2008 after it suffered tremendous losses.

When his transactions were reviewed, his e-mail showed disparaging remarks about his clients and boasts about earning commission from the sale of worthless stocks.

The e-mail was used as evidence to hold him liable for violation of the stockbrokers’ fiduciary rules. For his careless bravado, he was fired from his job, ordered to pay a hefty fine and blacklisted by other banks.

Indeed, there is basis for the reminder that any material sent through cyberspace remains in it until removed by the facility administrator concerned.

The problem is, despite the fact that business entities lay down strict rules on the proper use of their e-mail system, the admonition is often ignored or not taken seriously by their staff.

Disclaimer

The sense of security that firewalls supposedly provide makes some users less careful or make them put down their guard when typing out their thoughts and comments in their e-mail.

Disparaging remarks, nasty comments, irreverent jokes and unsavory statements about other companies or people have an uncanny way of finding their way in the mailbox of parties other than the intended recipients.

If the e-mail contains incriminatory or damaging statements, or implies (directly or indirectly) the commission of a crime, violation of rules and regulations, or involves actions that give rise to certain liabilities, it can be used as evidence against its sender.

Another area of concern in the use of e-mail is accidentally sending it to the wrong address or person, or, worse, to a competitor.

An inadvertently missed or wrongly indicated letter or phrase in an e-mail address could send the e-mail to a party other than to whom it is intended.

The error often happens when the e-mail is sent to several addresses or copies are simultaneously “CCed” to others.

Unless the sender takes a second look at his e-mail to check if the addresses are in order before pressing the “send” key, the e-mail could stray from their intended recipients.

To guard against this mishap, some companies put a “confidentiality notice” at the end of the e-mail that read along the following words: “If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please do not read or pass it on, and instead erase it. Should you fail to do so, you could be held liable for penalties under the law.”

Sounds tough and threatening, isn’t it? But don’t worry, it’s nothing to be scared of. It is not the recipient’s fault he received the e-mail. Had the sender exercised proper diligence before sending it, the booboo would not have happened. The warning does not have legal legs to stand on. It’s all sound and fury.

In any case, before pressing the “send” key, check and double-check your e-mail to make sure there is nothing in it that could put you in trouble or a compromising situation.

For comments, please send your email to “[email protected].”