<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ALERT:  Don&#8217;t use work email to communicate with your personal attorney.  You may waive Attorney-Client privilege.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/</link>
	<description>Theatre, Film, TV &#38; New Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:55:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon Firemark</title>
		<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/comment-page-1/#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Firemark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firemark.com/?p=927#comment-446</guid>
		<description>My thinking is that encrypted email would be safER, since the encryption keys would remain privileged and confidential, notwithstanding the disclosure of the encrypted message in the course of discovery, etc. The message (in its encrypted form) would be discoverable, but the content would be unreadable without the key.  (sure, it COULD be hacked, but doing so would be costly and difficult)  Of course, if the employer has access to the encryption key, then all bets are off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My thinking is that encrypted email would be safER, since the encryption keys would remain privileged and confidential, notwithstanding the disclosure of the encrypted message in the course of discovery, etc. The message (in its encrypted form) would be discoverable, but the content would be unreadable without the key.  (sure, it COULD be hacked, but doing so would be costly and difficult)  Of course, if the employer has access to the encryption key, then all bets are off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Melickian</title>
		<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/comment-page-1/#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Melickian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firemark.com/?p=927#comment-444</guid>
		<description>I agree that encryption is a good idea but query whether it solves the privilege issue, given the basis of the Idaho court&#039;s ruling.  If privilege  can be waived due to knowledge of (or merely the fact of) employer monitoring, an encrypted message between client and attorney starting from (or directed into) an employer&#039;s electronic domain would seem to suffer the same fate.  Query further whether using an employer&#039;s phone system to communicate with an attorney also risks waiver.  At a minimum, a voicemail from an attorney left with an employee/client that is converted into email through the employer&#039;s email system (increasingly common) would be at risk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that encryption is a good idea but query whether it solves the privilege issue, given the basis of the Idaho court&#8217;s ruling.  If privilege  can be waived due to knowledge of (or merely the fact of) employer monitoring, an encrypted message between client and attorney starting from (or directed into) an employer&#8217;s electronic domain would seem to suffer the same fate.  Query further whether using an employer&#8217;s phone system to communicate with an attorney also risks waiver.  At a minimum, a voicemail from an attorney left with an employee/client that is converted into email through the employer&#8217;s email system (increasingly common) would be at risk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon Firemark</title>
		<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/comment-page-1/#comment-438</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Firemark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firemark.com/?p=927#comment-438</guid>
		<description>Funny, I hadn&#039;t thought about the nightmare for lawyers.  I figured it was  a client-side issue.    Another argument in favor of encryption.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny, I hadn&#8217;t thought about the nightmare for lawyers.  I figured it was  a client-side issue.    Another argument in favor of encryption.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Cooperstein</title>
		<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/comment-page-1/#comment-437</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Cooperstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:24:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firemark.com/?p=927#comment-437</guid>
		<description>That’s a gem! I especially like the part about the lawyer having “constructive knowledge” that the e-mails were not going to be confidential because of the employer’s domain name in the e-mail address. This is a nightmare for lawyers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That’s a gem! I especially like the part about the lawyer having “constructive knowledge” that the e-mails were not going to be confidential because of the employer’s domain name in the e-mail address. This is a nightmare for lawyers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitted by BryanGriffith</title>
		<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/comment-page-1/#comment-436</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitted by BryanGriffith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firemark.com/?p=927#comment-436</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was Twitted by BryanGriffith [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was Twitted by BryanGriffith [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitted by SCartierLiebel</title>
		<link>http://firemark.com/2009/12/02/work-email-not-privileged/comment-page-1/#comment-434</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitted by SCartierLiebel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firemark.com/?p=927#comment-434</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was Twitted by SCartierLiebel [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was Twitted by SCartierLiebel [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

