Paulians and their perspicacious privacy warnings; profligate phlyarologists. (Their legal disclaimer is horseshit)

| February 28, 2012

OK, show of hands, how many of you have this idiotic facebook disclaimer up on your page:

Warning–any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/ or the comments made about my photo’s or any other “picture” art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. Without reservation  U.C.C. § 1-308.

Look, I don’t mean to be a dick (except to you Paulians, Oathkeepers and assorted other cranial rectal inversion enthusiasts) but the above stated disclaimer, (hereinafter “horseshit”) has as much legal bearing as reading the peanut and corn splatters in a port-a-john like a Rorschach test.

There is so much going on here, I am not sure where to even start. It’s like I once heard Rush Limbaugh wonder in his book, where he was trying to figure out who the first dude that licked a toad and got high. Like, how did that dude brag to his buddies that he found a way to get high by tonguing an amphibian? “Oh, I slipped and fell and my tongue went into this swamp creature?” Likewise, who was the keen legal mind that first thought up the concept that a social networking site, wherein you detail the mundane minutia of your day for the hundreds of folks that are your friends is somehow “private and legally privileged and confidential information”? I’d sooner lick the toad than claim birthright to that one.


Anyway, let’s start with the legal authority referenced, U.C.C. § 1-308. Must be legit, it has that squiggly line shit and some numbers…well, no, not really. You see, the U.C.C. is the “Uniform Commercial Code.” It’s not a law, it’s a bunch of drafts on what the law should look like from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute (ALI). (Your standard wiki link.) The second obvious problem is that it deals with the commercial code, which has jack shit to do with keeping the Feds from snooping in your shit. The specific language of that section of not-law, states:

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So let’s review….the legal authority they cite is not a law, it deals with commercial transactions not criminal or 4th Amendment type stuff, and has to do with the performance in a contract. Which parts of all that horseshit apply to Facebook?

So yesterday a wackadoodle shot up a school in Ohio, as you all know. And the pictures they used were all from dickhead’s Facebook. Now, how many of you out there think that had he had this disclaimer up, then no one would be allowed to use it? Not CBS News, not the evil Feds, no one….For all of you, here’s your sign:

I don’t want to get all legal on you, but “private and legally privileged and confidential information” actually has a meaning in the law, and it doesn’t apply to shit you toss up on your Facebook. For instance, my discussion this morning about how my wife noted that Jabba the Hutt looks like a poop….yeah, not privileged. Now, there is the spousal communications privilege and the spousal/marital testimonial privilege, but when you disclose that stuff to someone else, it is no longer privileged. So, my wife’s thoughts on Hutt/Fecal similarities conveyed to me in the car might be confidential to us, but when I put them up on my Facebook for Blackfive to call me a Ghey, they lose their inherent privileged status.

Likewise, your communication with your lawyer is mostly privileged, but if you communicate with him via stripagram, or a full page ad in the Boston Globe, not so much. For a legal look at some of this stuff, I would recommend this guy who notes that even emails between lawyer and client are not ALWAYS privileged thanks in part to overuse of idiotic disclaimers:

By overusing [disclaimers], lawyers may be undermining the effectiveness of disclaimers in protecting the confidential or privileged nature of the information in the e-mail in the (hopefully) rare event that an e-mail is misdirected (or inadvertently produced in discovery). In a recent case, Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center Inc., 847 N.Y.S.2d 436, 444 (2007), the court refused to find that a series of e-mails were privileged just because they contained a disclaimer that was found in every e-mail sent by the plaintiff. Lawyers are also training the world to ignore disclaimers and privilege warnings, which is precisely what we don’t want people to do.

The takeaway: if the disclaimer makes you feel warm and fuzzy, by all means keep it on your Facebook page. But, if you think that it will actually serve the purpose that it seems to be intended for, you have bigger problems that the Gov’t monitoring your Facebook page.

Category: Politics, Ron Paul

Comments (43)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Flagwaver says:

    Really? So, people think that information posted in the public is actually confidential? They should probably just go back to downloading porn and illegal copies of movies and leave the legal stuff to the… you know… experts.

  2. headhuntersix says:

    Facebook is the devil…..if I wanted people to find me, I’d already be talking to them. I’ve lived most of my life in the shade as it is….no need to highlight my past “crimes against humanity” to my wife.

  3. Hondo says:

    Horseshit from Ron Paul supporters? Who’d a thunk it! (smile)

  4. TSO says:

    Hondo- regarding your email addy that you are using, bought a copy of that book this weekend, and it ended up with a surreal discussion with the crazy lady manning the register. I love that book, but some people should absolutely be banned from reading it who have no comprehension of what it is actually discussing.

    That said, I am a bit like Mark David Chapman with with Holden Caulfield book with that tome. I buy it every time I find a different cover.

  5. TSO says:

    Also, my nom de guerre is a take on the title, inserting my battalion commanders name for that of the protagonist.

  6. Eagle Keeper says:

    Valid observation about people’s meaningless legal disclaimers.

    So, just what does this have to do with Ron Paul or his supporters again? (I mean, besides the fact that you’ve inexplicably referenced them in this post?)

    Looks like Hondo took the bait, though. (Where exactly is tha “horseshit from Paul supporters”?)

    Any flimsy excuse to hate, huh guys?


  7. Old Trooper says:

    @6: “Any flimsy excuse to hate, huh guys?”

    That’s because we’re haters. We hate for a living and we hate everything and everybody.

  8. TSO says:

    A fair point Eagle, but I wanted to avoid calling out specific folks on this. It’s one thing for me to refer derogatorily to Paulians in general, but I don’t want to say “Bob Smith in Pocatello ID is an idiot.” But, by way of example, look at the info section on the page of Coloradans for Ron Paul. You’ll see the disclaimer there. Also, I randomly put “Oath Keepers” in the Facebook search and looked at like the first 10, and 7 of them also had the disclaimer up.

  9. Eagle Keeper says:

    “phlyarology”: Exhibit A: this post.

  10. Hondo says:

    Apparently it wasn’t bait, Eagle Keeper. (smile)

    TSO: book in e-mail? 2001?

  11. Eagle Keeper says:

    OldTrooper (7),

    Congratulations. You just took the first step on the road to recovery.

  12. TSO says:

    EK, I like dead words. c.f.

    Hondo, your email address that you are using, Zarathustra.

  13. Eagle Keeper says:

    TSO (8),

    Well, there yuh go then. That proves it, don’t it?

  14. Eagle Keeper says:


    No problem with dead words. I dredge one up every now and again myself.

  15. TSO says:

    I can list more if you want, but if you do your own search, you will find it on more Paulian and Oath Keeper pages than say those swearing allegiance to MoveOn or some other random group.

  16. Hondo says:

    Oh, and Eagle Keeper: best I can tell, what we get from Ron Paul and his supporters is generally horseshit. The stopped clock principle keeps it from being 100% equine organic, I guess.

    IMO, of course.

  17. TSO says:

    FWIW, I also found a lot of birthers and WND types who have it more than is representative of the whole as well. I picked Paulians largely because some of them manage to seek through the SkyNet that is my exhuastive defense to my Facebook page, and the predominence of them had it on there.

    More so, I just wanted to toss it out there that no one should rely on that disclaimer to their detriment later on. Paulians, Olympians, Amphibians et al should avoid it.

  18. Hondo says:

    Wasn’t a book reference, actually – long story.

    Wondered if you were referring to Clarke’s 2001 or something else. Nietzsche, I’d guess?

  19. TSO says:

    Yeah Hondo, didn’t even know there were other references. I just assumed it was an Uber Mensche type reference.

  20. UpNorth says:

    “Perspicacious”? Word of the day. And how does one get to be a “commissioner of uniform state laws”, and what does it pay? Does that come with healthcare?
    “You have bigger problems than the Gov’t monitoring your Facebook page”. Yeah, the rubber bandin the beanie being wound too tight would be one problem.

  21. Hondo says:

    TSO: most think first of 2001 when they hear/see the term Zarathustra due to the film’s theme song. It’s less common to find someone who thinks of Nietzsche.

    My use was neither – it was a geographical reference that I found applicable when I created the account.

  22. TSO says:

    Thus began Zarathustra’s down-going.

  23. JAGC says:

    At my office, virtually every time someone references something stupid, creepy or outright ridiculous, the conversation now shifts to chemtrails and vinegar before a nice little laugh at Ronpaul and his band of weirdos.

    But I suppose we are not actually in or affiliated with the military because the Ronpaul people have stated that the troops support Ronpaul. Therefore, our existance creates a paradox that can only be explained by some pseudo-intellectual dribble protected by faux disclaimers by uneducated followers of a fringe Republican politician.

  24. TSO says:

    Indeed, JAG, it’s like a rip in the Time/Space/Paulian fabric of the universe.

  25. Hondo says:

    JAGC: but – but it has to be true that the troops overwhelmingly support Paul. It was published in the media! (smile)

  26. JAGC says:

    @24 and 25… Sicne Ronpaul (R-TX) and his followers must be right, then there are only two possible explainations.
    1) All the active and retired military personnel in our shop must have been dragged through some chemtrail-induced wormhole, consequently transporting us into a parallel dimension where we view Ronpaul as a worthless joke rather than a completely awesome Repbulican candidate. I suspect Eagle Keeper will have a scientific answer to the one hole in this theory regarding our lack of bizarro-world facial hair, which, obviously, can only come from an evil parallel universe where the military views Ronpaul as feces.

    2)We are all posers and not actually in or affiliated with the military. Our trips to Iraq and Afghanistan were merely sightseeing tours specifically designed and planned well in advance to discredit Ronpaul.

    Unrelated, Mrs. JAGC and I had the exact same conversation about Jabba the Hut looking like a giant turd.

  27. Susan says:

    You want to see more of this crap, google sovereign citizen.

  28. RangerX says:

    “Anyway, let’s start with the legal authority referenced, U.C.C. § 1-308. Must be legit, it has that squiggly line shit and some numbers…”

    I can’t stop laughing at this…..

  29. NHSparky says:

    But for God’s sakes, whatever you do, never bring up Ronpaul and his association with Stormfront. That’ll just set the little howler monkeys off right there.

  30. Hondo says:

    Good point, NHSparky. Dry cleaning doesn’t always get out monkey feces stains.

  31. Old Trooper says:

    @11: You didn’t study sarcasm in school, did you?

  32. NHSparky says:

    OT–he’s not a lawyer either (or a “lawer”, if you want to go by SGM Mailboy) but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

  33. Lucky says:

    Hahaha thanks guys; just spit coffee all over my brand new laptop! Wow, I knew the Paulians were tools but this is just FUNNY

  34. S.G. says:

    I hate the Paulestinians, biggest bunch of cultists since Jim Jones. They make the Tamborine shakers of the Moonies look like pikers comparitively.

  35. Lucky says:

    Quick! GIve them Kool Aid!!!!!!

  36. Susan says:

    A cousin of mine (retired Army shrink) knew Ron pretty well in med school and said there were no signs of psychosis at that time. He said that, while he has not talked to Paul in years, and was thus not offering an official diagnosis, his personal opinion was that Dr. Paul was now somewhat delusional and beyond crazy.

  37. Lucky says:

    Susan, the diagnosis is quite sound!

  38. FOMSG says:

    Funny thing is, no one, not even the government has the least interest in what those idiots have to say.

  39. AW1 Tim says:

    I’ve had to quietly reassess my relation with a neighbor of mine. I’ve known him and his family for years, and we’ve always had a great relationship.

    However, the past couple years have been rather traumatic for them, and he suddenly went from this blue-collar guy to a well-manicured, suit=wearing fellow. Next thing I know, one of his daughters is complaining to me about not being allowed to have pork in the house and spending saturdays at church and bible study. Seems he joined the Seventh Day Adventists. Thats alright. I discreetly let his daughter come over when I’m cooking ribs or BLT’s.

    BUT……. this morning I walk next door to their house, for to go with her to the DMV (we both needed to renew our licenses) and there’s this big RON PAUL sign in his front yard.

    Yeeeeesh. That man ought to have a large letter “S” tattooed on his forehead for “SUCKER”.

    I mean, he’s a nice guy, but I really do NOT want to get into conversations with him about religion or politics because he doesn’t debate well. All he can do is reference the party line(s), as it were, and then add “It’s what I believe to be true!” God Bless him. I wish him well, but he’s starting to creep me out.

    He’s already WAAAAAYYYYYYY deep into the conspiracy theory crap, as his constant emails to me show, and I’m worried about what will happen when RonPaul Loses.


  40. UpNorth says:

    Tim, just give him a spray bottle and a gallon of vinegar.

  41. Eagle Keeper says:

    AW1 Tim,

    You’re worried about what happens when Ron Paul loses?

    Funny, I’m not.

    (Well, not in <i.that way. I’m worried for this country’s direction, but Ron ain’t the Messiah, Jesus is.)

  42. AW1 Tim says:

    I’m worried about my neighbor when RonPaul loses.

    Me? Not so much. 🙂