[Goose]

BTW, Goose, your encryption requirement for emails still doesn't fly, does it?  Unless communication is to spouse/partner, attorney, spiritual leader, then is there any expectation of privacy on the substance of the communication, even with use of encryption to open an email?  I don't think so.  So aside from practical difficulties with such an approach, I don't think it flies as a legal matter, either.

There are laws against disclosing information decrypted from data received via encrypted radio transmission or public telephone network. (where the definition of "encrypted" is very, very broad). It has been argued that if the text was ever transmitted that way it is protected. Much of the internet and related communication is wireless, so it can be argued the prohibition applies even if the text was obtained another way. In that case there is an explicit legal framework.
While the cypertext of an encrypted email  has no legal protection, the practical protection is that the person possessing it can't decode it. He can prove communication exists, but he can't prove its context. One might argue that people with enough resources, like a nation state, can always decrypt an email. Probably true if the cypher is a computer-based cypher with a key. However, most people and companies can easily distribute a one-time pad to those they communicate with which will defeat that threat, if they feel it necessary.

[Goose]

BTW, Goose, your encryption requirement for emails still doesn't fly, does it?  Unless communication is to spouse/partner, attorney, spiritual leader, then is there any expectation of privacy on the substance of the communication, even with use of encryption to open an email?  I don't think so.  So aside from practical difficulties with such an approach, I don't think it flies as a legal matter, either.

There are laws against disclosing information decrypted from data received via encrypted radio transmission or public telephone network. (where the definition of "encrypted" is very, very broad). It has been argued that if the text was ever transmitted that way it is protected. Much of the internet and related communication is wireless, so it can be argued the prohibition applies even if the text was obtained another way. In that case there is an explicit legal framework.
While the cypertext of an encrypted email  has no legal protection, the practical protection is that the person possessing it can't decode it. He can prove communication exists, but he can't prove its context. One might argue that people with enough resources, like a nation state, can always decrypt an email. Probably true if the cypher is a computer-based cypher with a key. However, most people and companies can easily distribute a one-time pad to those they communicate with which will defeat that threat, if they feel it necessary.

[BostonCard]

The NFL claims that it has uncovered no more emails that implicate other NFL personnel...

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3240...estigation



BC

[BostonCard]

The NFL claims that it has uncovered no more emails that implicate other NFL personnel...

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3240...estigation



BC

[OutsiderFan]

The NYT story about emails between NFL legal counsel Jeff Pash with Bruce Allen is far worse for the NFL than the Gruden emails, IMO.

1. Jeff Pash is in Roger Goodell's inner circle and basically disrespecting NFL league policies
2. Goodell has someone in his employ at odds with NFL initiatives to be more inclusive and respectful of diversity, and undermining him
3. Or, Goodell doesn't really buy into the NFL's stated belief in equality and diversity either
4. Dan Snyder has not been called out for anything when we know based on WaPo reporting that he oversaw some bad stuff

Translation: The NFL can scapegoat a Coach who got caught up in an email dragnet, but this reporting from the NYT about Pash and Allen is suggestive of many more league people holding similar views as Gruden. 

Unless and until the NFL comes clean - not by issuing worthless statements about how "no other emails were found like Gruden's" even though the NYT story showed similar ones between an NFL executive and Bruce Allen - by releasing the emails to the NFLPA as requested, there is zero reason to believe the NFL that there are no other people in the league who have behaved like Gruden in the NFL.

After reading the detail in the NYT story about Jeff Pash and Bruce Allen's email exchanges, my first conclusion was it sure seems like the NYT and/or WaPo has the 650k emails. Moreover, because there is no way in hell the NFL wanted the communications of these guys made public, it calls into question the theory that Goodell leaked about Gruden. Maybe he did, but someone else gave the NYT the Pash-Allen emails. Seems logical to assume the NYT and/or WaPo has more of them to expose.

[OutsiderFan]

The NYT story about emails between NFL legal counsel Jeff Pash with Bruce Allen is far worse for the NFL than the Gruden emails, IMO.

1. Jeff Pash is in Roger Goodell's inner circle and basically disrespecting NFL league policies
2. Goodell has someone in his employ at odds with NFL initiatives to be more inclusive and respectful of diversity, and undermining him
3. Or, Goodell doesn't really buy into the NFL's stated belief in equality and diversity either
4. Dan Snyder has not been called out for anything when we know based on WaPo reporting that he oversaw some bad stuff

Translation: The NFL can scapegoat a Coach who got caught up in an email dragnet, but this reporting from the NYT about Pash and Allen is suggestive of many more league people holding similar views as Gruden. 

Unless and until the NFL comes clean - not by issuing worthless statements about how "no other emails were found like Gruden's" even though the NYT story showed similar ones between an NFL executive and Bruce Allen - by releasing the emails to the NFLPA as requested, there is zero reason to believe the NFL that there are no other people in the league who have behaved like Gruden in the NFL.

After reading the detail in the NYT story about Jeff Pash and Bruce Allen's email exchanges, my first conclusion was it sure seems like the NYT and/or WaPo has the 650k emails. Moreover, because there is no way in hell the NFL wanted the communications of these guys made public, it calls into question the theory that Goodell leaked about Gruden. Maybe he did, but someone else gave the NYT the Pash-Allen emails. Seems logical to assume the NYT and/or WaPo has more of them to expose.

[DC 86]

The NFL claims that it has uncovered no more emails that implicate other NFL personnel...

BC

Carefully worded as "current" NFL personnel.

[DC 86]

The NFL claims that it has uncovered no more emails that implicate other NFL personnel...

BC

Carefully worded as "current" NFL personnel.

[BostonCard]

The NFL claims that it has uncovered no more emails that implicate other NFL personnel...

BC

Carefully worded as "current" NFL personnel.

It definitely occurred to me that the statement required fine-toothed-comb parsing.

BC

[BostonCard]

The NFL claims that it has uncovered no more emails that implicate other NFL personnel...

BC

Carefully worded as "current" NFL personnel.

It definitely occurred to me that the statement required fine-toothed-comb parsing.

BC

[lex24]

Destruction by old emails.  The realities of our age.  “I have here in my inbox…..”

[lex24]

Destruction by old emails.  The realities of our age.  “I have here in my inbox…..”

[BostonCard]

Destruction by old emails.  The realities of our age.  “I have here in my inbox…..”

That's why my company has a retention policy and automatically deletes any emails that are not flagged for regulatory or legal hold after a few years.  On the other hand, on my private email, I pulled out an email thread I had had 5 years ago with a mutual friend of ours who posts on this board about a once and future FDA commissioner thanks to the magic of gmail's search function.

BC

[BostonCard]

Destruction by old emails.  The realities of our age.  “I have here in my inbox…..”

That's why my company has a retention policy and automatically deletes any emails that are not flagged for regulatory or legal hold after a few years.  On the other hand, on my private email, I pulled out an email thread I had had 5 years ago with a mutual friend of ours who posts on this board about a once and future FDA commissioner thanks to the magic of gmail's search function.

BC

[M T]

Oh, that new-fangled gmail...  I have printouts of computer mail of mine from 45 years ago..  My main work email address is 40 years old (modulo transitioning from .arpa to .com).

Maybe others are different, but most of my email is person-to-person(s) communications and usually specific, rarely about something controversial.

What would more likely do me in would be discussion lists (like The CARDboard) where topics might be more controversial and clearly more public.  (There are 40-year old discussion lists available on the web to which I contributed (with my undisguised real name).  Thankfully, I've always steered clear of any controversial ideas or phrasings.)  Social media and other postings (for instance, comments on a news media article) are also very public.

Even if you think your email to someone will be treated confidentially, things change.  Friendships & allegiances change; divorces happen.  Even if that doesn't happen, email is a prime target for bad guys to collect and process.   How many times have you gotten bogus email supposedly from some email address that you once shared a message with?  That probably means that message is in some bad guy's treasure archive (and other bad guys may buy it from him).

Regarding encrypted email, do recognize that if someone competent enough gets into your computer, they can probably use you to get through the encryption barrier. And it won't matter much to them if there is some rule/agreement/law against doing so.  

I'm more concerned about the ubiquity of microphones, on computing devices, TV remotes, Alexa/Siri, security cameras, etc.  Not all utterances a person makes have gone through their own filters of reason.  ("I could just kill him.")  [And, yes, my first official complaint about potential misuse by microphones on computers was about 38 years ago.  Hmmm... let me see if I have that email somewhere (;-)]

Also, a problem with deleting old email is that if another recipient produces an altered copy, you have no data to back up a counter claim that it was not the real message.

[M T]

Oh, that new-fangled gmail...  I have printouts of computer mail of mine from 45 years ago..  My main work email address is 40 years old (modulo transitioning from .arpa to .com).

Maybe others are different, but most of my email is person-to-person(s) communications and usually specific, rarely about something controversial.

What would more likely do me in would be discussion lists (like The CARDboard) where topics might be more controversial and clearly more public.  (There are 40-year old discussion lists available on the web to which I contributed (with my undisguised real name).  Thankfully, I've always steered clear of any controversial ideas or phrasings.)  Social media and other postings (for instance, comments on a news media article) are also very public.

Even if you think your email to someone will be treated confidentially, things change.  Friendships & allegiances change; divorces happen.  Even if that doesn't happen, email is a prime target for bad guys to collect and process.   How many times have you gotten bogus email supposedly from some email address that you once shared a message with?  That probably means that message is in some bad guy's treasure archive (and other bad guys may buy it from him).

Regarding encrypted email, do recognize that if someone competent enough gets into your computer, they can probably use you to get through the encryption barrier. And it won't matter much to them if there is some rule/agreement/law against doing so.  

I'm more concerned about the ubiquity of microphones, on computing devices, TV remotes, Alexa/Siri, security cameras, etc.  Not all utterances a person makes have gone through their own filters of reason.  ("I could just kill him.")  [And, yes, my first official complaint about potential misuse by microphones on computers was about 38 years ago.  Hmmm... let me see if I have that email somewhere (;-)]

Also, a problem with deleting old email is that if another recipient produces an altered copy, you have no data to back up a counter claim that it was not the real message.

[martyup]

I think there are two issues here.  The first is whether someone at the NFL should have leaked the emails, which are years old, and were made before Gruden was employed as a coach.  This reeks as a targeted and vindictive move.  But it is also possible, I suppose, that someone legitimately was offended, and that their assessment of "who Gruden is" is different from some posters here.  It is somewhat disturbing that someone can project a certain persona in public, and then thinking something is private, lets loose on a pattern of racial and homophobic slurs.

The second question is, given that the emails were released, what should be done.  I believe in grace; we are all human, and someone who made racial slurs years ago who is genuinely sorry and takes steps to atone, shouldn't be completely shunned.  Of course, that is easier for someone like me to say, given that I was not the target of his slurs, and I can imagine a lot of people are sick and tired of performative apologies. The key, however, is the word "genuine", and I can see how some people might be very cynical of anything that publicly expresses regret over privately shared offensive content.  I don't know Gruden; so it is hard for me to say.

More broadly, given that we have to live together, I favor both it being socially unacceptable to routinely use slurs against anyone (even seemingly in private), but also in showing grace to those who have done so and have worked to overcome whatever animus may have motivated it.

BC

It would be easier to justify the harsh treatment of the offending individuals in these cases if racist, sexist, and homophobic lyrics weren't prevalent in pop urban music and in the daily social interaction of the complaining demographic group.  I play basketball regularly with a bunch of mixed race players of all ages and I can say that the "N" word is used by African Americans far more than I've ever heard it used by white folks.  

BC, I agree with you "showing grace" position.  We should hire Gruden as our OC.

[martyup]

I think there are two issues here.  The first is whether someone at the NFL should have leaked the emails, which are years old, and were made before Gruden was employed as a coach.  This reeks as a targeted and vindictive move.  But it is also possible, I suppose, that someone legitimately was offended, and that their assessment of "who Gruden is" is different from some posters here.  It is somewhat disturbing that someone can project a certain persona in public, and then thinking something is private, lets loose on a pattern of racial and homophobic slurs.

The second question is, given that the emails were released, what should be done.  I believe in grace; we are all human, and someone who made racial slurs years ago who is genuinely sorry and takes steps to atone, shouldn't be completely shunned.  Of course, that is easier for someone like me to say, given that I was not the target of his slurs, and I can imagine a lot of people are sick and tired of performative apologies. The key, however, is the word "genuine", and I can see how some people might be very cynical of anything that publicly expresses regret over privately shared offensive content.  I don't know Gruden; so it is hard for me to say.

More broadly, given that we have to live together, I favor both it being socially unacceptable to routinely use slurs against anyone (even seemingly in private), but also in showing grace to those who have done so and have worked to overcome whatever animus may have motivated it.

BC

It would be easier to justify the harsh treatment of the offending individuals in these cases if racist, sexist, and homophobic lyrics weren't prevalent in pop urban music and in the daily social interaction of the complaining demographic group.  I play basketball regularly with a bunch of mixed race players of all ages and I can say that the "N" word is used by African Americans far more than I've ever heard it used by white folks.  

BC, I agree with you "showing grace" position.  We should hire Gruden as our OC.

[BostonCard]

Context matters.

BC

[BostonCard]

Context matters.

BC

[Canalejas]

I think there are two issues here.  The first is whether someone at the NFL should have leaked the emails, which are years old, and were made before Gruden was employed as a coach.  This reeks as a targeted and vindictive move.  But it is also possible, I suppose, that someone legitimately was offended, and that their assessment of "who Gruden is" is different from some posters here.  It is somewhat disturbing that someone can project a certain persona in public, and then thinking something is private, lets loose on a pattern of racial and homophobic slurs.

The second question is, given that the emails were released, what should be done.  I believe in grace; we are all human, and someone who made racial slurs years ago who is genuinely sorry and takes steps to atone, shouldn't be completely shunned.  Of course, that is easier for someone like me to say, given that I was not the target of his slurs, and I can imagine a lot of people are sick and tired of performative apologies. The key, however, is the word "genuine", and I can see how some people might be very cynical of anything that publicly expresses regret over privately shared offensive content.  I don't know Gruden; so it is hard for me to say.

More broadly, given that we have to live together, I favor both it being socially unacceptable to routinely use slurs against anyone (even seemingly in private), but also in showing grace to those who have done so and have worked to overcome whatever animus may have motivated it.

BC

It would be easier to justify the harsh treatment of the offending individuals in these cases if racist, sexist, and homophobic lyrics weren't prevalent in pop urban music and in the daily social interaction of the complaining demographic group.  I play basketball regularly with a bunch of mixed race players of all ages and I can say that the "N" word is used by African Americans far more than I've ever heard it used by white folks.  

BC, I agree with you "showing grace" position.  We should hire Gruden as our OC.

Wow. F everything about that.

[Canalejas]

I think there are two issues here.  The first is whether someone at the NFL should have leaked the emails, which are years old, and were made before Gruden was employed as a coach.  This reeks as a targeted and vindictive move.  But it is also possible, I suppose, that someone legitimately was offended, and that their assessment of "who Gruden is" is different from some posters here.  It is somewhat disturbing that someone can project a certain persona in public, and then thinking something is private, lets loose on a pattern of racial and homophobic slurs.

The second question is, given that the emails were released, what should be done.  I believe in grace; we are all human, and someone who made racial slurs years ago who is genuinely sorry and takes steps to atone, shouldn't be completely shunned.  Of course, that is easier for someone like me to say, given that I was not the target of his slurs, and I can imagine a lot of people are sick and tired of performative apologies. The key, however, is the word "genuine", and I can see how some people might be very cynical of anything that publicly expresses regret over privately shared offensive content.  I don't know Gruden; so it is hard for me to say.

More broadly, given that we have to live together, I favor both it being socially unacceptable to routinely use slurs against anyone (even seemingly in private), but also in showing grace to those who have done so and have worked to overcome whatever animus may have motivated it.

BC

It would be easier to justify the harsh treatment of the offending individuals in these cases if racist, sexist, and homophobic lyrics weren't prevalent in pop urban music and in the daily social interaction of the complaining demographic group.  I play basketball regularly with a bunch of mixed race players of all ages and I can say that the "N" word is used by African Americans far more than I've ever heard it used by white folks.  

BC, I agree with you "showing grace" position.  We should hire Gruden as our OC.

Wow. F everything about that.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

I believe the Raiders hired Gruden because a "big name head coach" would help the sale of personal seat licenses and corporate sponsorships for the
construction the Las Vegas stadium . Those two sources of revenue brought the Raiders approximately $1 billion.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

I believe the Raiders hired Gruden because a "big name head coach" would help the sale of personal seat licenses and corporate sponsorships for the
construction the Las Vegas stadium . Those two sources of revenue brought the Raiders approximately $1 billion.