I've taken an informal survey and about 20% of the business emails I receive contain one of those message footers that start "Privileged and Confidential." Here's a sample:

NOTICE: This e-mail message including any attachment (collectively the "e-mail") may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. If you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this emailed information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, then please

(i) do not read this e-mail, (ii) do not forward, print, copy or otherwise disseminate this e-mail, (iii) notify us of the error by a reply to this e-mail, and (iv) delete this e-mail from your computer.

My question is whether these notices do any good. It's hard to see how.

These notices were invented by lawyers to cover specific situations, and for lawyers they DO have a purpose. A good purpose. They protect the lawyer's client by asserting that the document is subject to the famous attorney-client privilege. That way the document (theoretically) can't be used against the client, as when the lawyer hits the "send" button too fast and the message falls into someone else's hands, like, say the opposing lawyer. (Oooh. Bad move.)

But, for non-lawyers, do these notices have any worthwhile purpose? Do the senders even know what the messages mean? Because if they understood what the notices meant (outside of the legal privilege situation) they surely wouldn't have meant to use them.

First, let's take a look at the situation where the email ends up in the hands of the intended recipient: Stop and think about the following scenario. Here you are, about to enter into a business transaction with someone's company. You receive a message that says down at the bottom that you are prohibited from relying on the email message. Would you want to do business with that person? After he/she has just told you that all the things promised in the email are things you are "prohibited" from relying on? I don't think so.