Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Bruce Boyden on Tumblr, Porn, and Internet Intermediaries

    • Orin Kerr on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • Guy Spier on Symposium Redux: Essays and Lessons

    • John Mihaljevic on Is Berkshire Hathaway Really a Psychology Experiment?

    • Sy Lorne on The Many Audiences of Buffett's Letters

    • Lawrence Cunningham on The Skeptical Principal

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Berkshire's Dividend Policy: Part II

    • Lawrence Cunningham on The Many Audiences of Buffett's Letters

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Deals without Bankers: Salomon and Benjamin Moore

    • Brett Bellmore on National Referenda

    • Gerard Magliocca on National Referenda

    • mls on National Referenda

    • David Schwartz on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Warren Buffett: Practical Philosopher of Capitalism

    • Ken Shubin Stein on Is Berkshire Hathaway Really a Psychology Experiment?
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Unsending an Email

posted by Daniel Solove

email1a.jpgFrom CNN:

Most of us have done it.

Instead of hitting “reply” to an e-mail, we accidentally push “reply all,” sending a potentially embarrassing or insulting message to those we didn’t intend to see it.

To address this problem, Google Inc.’s Gmail Labs has launched an experimental feature called “Undo Send” that gives users a chance to rewrite their message, correct settings or simply fix typos.

When a Gmail user who enables this feature sends an e-mail, a button that says “Undo” will pop up on their screen for five seconds. If the user hits the button within that time, the service will retrieve the e-mail in draft form — allowing the user to make changes or cancel the message altogether.

I assume that this service works by delaying sending out an email after the user hits the send button. Suppose that Google offered a different service, one that allowed users to edit or delete emails sent after being received by recipients. Currently, I don’t think it would be possible within the technical architecture of email systems, but I wonder whether there’s a way it could be possible and/or legal. Would such a service be desirable? It would certainly be so for senders, who may want to zap the existence of emails they later came to regret. But what about the recipients, who would suddenly see emails vanish from their inboxes or change in content?


 March 25, 2009 at 7:31 pm   Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Consumer Privacy), Technology   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (15)

  1. chris - March 25, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Last april fools they had a press release for a feature that allowed you to change the time stamp on an email to make it look like it was sent earlier than what it really was. I.e., you could have an email appear to have been sent 2 days before a deadline as opposed to an hour after it.

  2. chris - March 25, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    http://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html

  3. chris - March 25, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    http://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html

  4. Daniel J. Solove - March 25, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Chris — There was an old SNL commercial skit that predates the Google joke about a mail service that allows you to send packages late, backdate them, then blame the mail service for the lateness. The ad said that the company would take the blame so you wouldn’t have to. Its motto was something like: “When it absolutely, positively has to be there the day before yesterday.”

  5. A.J. Sutter - March 25, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    This reminds me of a 1,600-year-old joke recently reported in the TLS in a review about ancient Greek humor (2009/02/20 @ 3):

    Patient: Doctor, when I get up in the morning I feel dizzy for 20 minutes.

    Doctor: Get up 20 minutes later, then.

  6. fishbane - March 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    Lots of corporate mail systems have had this feature. I still occasionally get MS Exchange “so and so would like to recall this message” notices – I see them, as I don’t use exchange, but within a user population, it at least used to work.

    Of course, inside a corporation, different rules apply than if it were part of our normal email architecture.

    Side query – would the legal reasoning apply if email had been designed from the ground up with that “feature”? What if it were simply part of the protocol from the beginning? Nobody would have been forced to be subject to it – just don’t use the protocol.

  7. Ml - March 25, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    The problem is: you can’t un-ring a bell. Once you send an email, I can print it out, back it up, and forward it, all of which preserves the content of the original e-mail. I don’t see how you could get around that, unless you recalled the e-mail before anyone was read it.

  8. Frank - March 25, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    Fascinating. Am I right to think that in the law of letters, the recipient owns the letter itself, but the sender owns the copyright in the content of the letter? If that maps to email, then perhaps the program would be destroying the recipient’s property if it zapped the letter…though I imagine the Terms of Service have already given the email service plenary power to do just that.

  9. Jay Levitt - March 25, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    I implemented unsend for AOL (which, TTBOMK, still has it).

    Google does indeed add a built-in delay; it defaults to 5 seconds, but you can change that to 10 seconds.

    Internet mail is store-and-forward, so you’re right; an Internet-based mail systems can’t do any better. If you have a “rock mail” system like AOL or Exchange, you can do true unsending. (Rock mail: The message itself is on a centralized server. When I send you an e-mail, I’m really just saying, “I put a message under this rock. Go look for it.”)

    At the time, only a fraction of AOL mail was sent to the Internet, so store-and-forward wasn’t a big problem. For rock-mail recipients, we actually implemented it two different ways – one for Apple’s AOL-hosted eWorld and one for AOL itself.

    eWorld had the ability to unsend any non-Internet mail, no matter what. This runs into exactly the awkwardness MI mentions: if I send you an e-mail, you open it, and then I unsend it, it’s still on your screen. But if you closed it without saving it – and that was rarer in the days of small hard drives and slow printers – then it was gone, and you couldn’t read it again.

    AOL’s version was more limited. If any of the recipients had read the e-mail, you could no longer unsend it. In fact, we might have gone even further; it was possible for us to see if any of the recipients had listed their inbox, and thus if anyone had been aware of the e-mail’s existence at all. I forget which way we did it.

    Naturally, the AOL flavor was named “ethical” unsend. If nobody finds out you did something, it must clearly be ethical.

    I don’t recall any legal concerns about it, and we were fastidious about e-mail privacy (although this was before ECPA codified our responsibilities). So I’d assume that Frank’s right, and we felt that the Terms of Service allowed us to do it.

  10. Steven M. Bellovin - March 25, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    There are a variety of implementations that sometimes work…

    As noted, Microsoft Exchange has that feature; however, it only works within Exchange. It does not use any Internet-standard ‘recall this message’ scheme, since none exists. Even if one were designed, if it’s mail as mail it can’t work reliably; the receiving system is free to ignore the request, since there is no Internet “protocol police” to force them to comply with the recall message.

    Other schemes rely on something essential to reading the message being stored on the sender’s machine. To recall a message, delete that piece. For example, the message could be sent encrypted, with a URL to retrieve the key. Of course, most people don’t have mail readers that understand encryption; beyond that, having to click on a link to retrieve a key violates the receiver’s password, since it indicates when he or she actually tried to read the message. Indeed, depending on circumstances, it can disclose geographic information the recipient may prefer to conceal.

    The other variant, more compatible with virtually all mailers, stores the mail itself on some web server, and sends the URL instead, with a request that the recipient click on it. As before, there are privacy issues. Besides, many people will not click on random links arriving in email purporting to be from someone they know. In theory, one could construct an email message that did the external reference automatically. There’s a feature of HTML called an IFRAME; in essence, an IFRAME is a mini-web page embedded within some larger HTML document. But mailers typically disable autofetching of content, for precisely the privacy reasons I just outlined.

    Bottom line: it cannot be done, even in principle, unless the recipient’s mail server is willing to cooperate or if the recipient is willing to sacrifice some privacy and perhaps convenience. You can work around the privacy issue by putting the other part on some trusted third party server, but that requires everyone to actually trust it.

  11. Michael Risch - March 26, 2009 at 7:24 am

    A company called “invisible ink” implemented the kind of system Steven Bellovin describes – it sent the email in a form that required decryption, such that the message would become unreadable after a certain period of time.

  12. C.T. - March 26, 2009 at 9:53 am

    This concept seems to raise similar policy concerns that animated Facebook’s adjustments to their terms of service and the

    hubbub that ensued. The changes ostensibly gave Facebook rights to the content people posted on their pages, even after a user deleted their profile. Facebook claimed that the purpose of the change was to alleviate them of liability in the event that the departing user had posted their photos on another user’s wall. Essentially, Facebook did not want to be faced with the issues that would flow from the ability to “unsend” regrettable emails.

  13. Bruce Boyden - March 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    “When it absolutely, positively has to be there the day before yesterday.”

    I’m pretty sure that was “Einstein Express,” which used time travel to actually *get* your package there the day before yesterday. If Google could only figure out a way to do THAT…

  14. Jeff Lipshaw - March 28, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    I hear Toni Braxton has a take on this:

    Un-do that mail

    Go in another’s domain

    Un-do that “send” that you hit

    When you wanted to spit

    But you didn’t delete

    Un-type that note

    It made “Above the Law”

    Un-do that mail.

    That mail.

  15. Derek - April 5, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Lotus Notes does this…

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress