Private or Public

[sarang]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Anna hazare and salman kurshid had a private meeting in an industrialist's guest house last month. Anna agreed to keep the meeting and the discussion secret even from his team members when kurshid requested him. Last week, minister narayanaswamy wrote a letter to the team members, disclosing that anna and the government are having secret discussions. Anna is furious, sees this as an attempt to divide the team and has vowed never to meet or discuss with any member of the present government. Oral commitment has been breached and anna has exploded; but kurshid has not opened his mouth yet- he may say that he never told anna that the discussions are confidential. The ministers and mms are very clever in obfuscation and anna will be the loser.

As per the indian postal act (as far as i know), when a letter is dropped in the post box, it becomes postal dept's property and the writer has no right over it and cannot even retrieve it. After the letter is delivered, it becomes the property of the receiver - the original writer and the post office have no right over the letter. The owner (post receiver) is free to do anything with the letter - make it public, burn it or bequeath it. The originator has no right or control unless he has entered into an agreement regarding disclosure.

I assume the same logic and rules are valid for private electronic messages; receiver has the right to do what he wants - make it public or keep it or delete it. Sender cannot complain that his privacy is violated.

 

[zebra16]

As per the indian postal act (as far as i know), when a letter is dropped in the post box, it becomes postal dept's property and the writer has no right over it and cannot even retrieve it. After the letter is delivered, it becomes the property of the receiver - the original writer and the post office have no right over the letter. The owner (post receiver) is free to do anything with the letter - make it public, burn it or bequeath it. The originator has no right or control unless he has entered into an agreement regarding disclosure.

I assume the same logic and rules are valid for private electronic messages; receiver has the right to do what he wants - make it public or keep it or delete it. Sender cannot complain that his privacy is violated.

I think you are not correct here. As per my understanding of law:

(i) the postal department never has ownership of the letters dropped into the box etc. and thus cannot have property rights over it;

(ii) the postal deparment acts as an "agent" - the question is to whom it acts as an agent - to the poster of the letter or the receiver of the letter.

In the court decided cases (read it long time back in college days), the postal department acts as an "agent" of the sender of the letter, till such time the letter is actually received by the addressee. That is why (i) mere evidence of proof of having mailed the letter (by UPC or registered post) is considered sufficient notice; (ii) in case of registered posts, if the registration receipt accompanied by request to return the letter to the person sending post, are considered favourably.

(iii) If the letter is returned undelivered to the sender, the ownership vests with the sender and the addressee is denied of the ownership or acting on the undelivered letter, even if he learns through other means existence of such letter (and its contents) posted to him

 

[prasad1]

I think you are not correct here. As per my understanding of law:

(i) the postal department never has ownership of the letters dropped into the box etc. and thus cannot have property rights over it;

(ii) the postal deparment acts as an "agent" - the question is to whom it acts as an agent - to the poster of the letter or the receiver of the letter.

In the court decided cases (read it long time back in college days), the postal department acts as an "agent" of the sender of the letter, till such time the letter is actually received by the addressee. That is why (i) mere evidence of proof of having mailed the letter (by UPC or registered post) is considered sufficient notice; (ii) in case of registered posts, if the registration receipt accompanied by request to return the letter to the person sending post, are considered favourably.

(iii) If the letter is returned undelivered to the sender, the ownership vests with the sender and the addressee is denied of the ownership or acting on the undelivered letter, even if he learns through other means existence of such letter (and its contents) posted to him

Oh how we miss certain recently departed member...
His son-in-law was a lawyer, who could have resolved this problem.
I am not a lawyer.
As far as electronic mail is concerned, once it reaches the server, it is owned by internet providers. Here is usa the server owner can parse, search, and can produce in court of law. The server owners have their own code of privacy.
There are norm of public behavior, which are vert different than legal. Coveting neighbors wife is not illegal, but not an accepted behavior.

 

[prasad1]

Even if a letter is written in complete confidence, and both party pledge it to be confidential, there is no guarantee of privacy. If the message was written in employer or some one else's computer, the computer owner can retrive that message.
The privacy rules are evolving and getting interpreted every day.

 

[Raghy]

Greetings.

To my understanding, Indian Postal service treats the letter as the private property of the person it is addressed to after the mail had been posted. Once my dear wife by mistake sent the letter addressed to her to my cousin and the letter addressed to my cousin to herself. When I cam back from work, I learned of that. I had to plead with the post master to swich the mails. (It was quite a tough ask. at last I explained, naughty card would end up with my cousin instead of my wife, post master half heartedly agreed to exchange)! There was a Tamizh movie by the name 'Anjal petty 520' based on this theme.

That same mail when not delivered is considered as the private property of the sender. In any case, once a mail is despatched, it becomes the private mail since it is a private property.

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

Greetings.

To my understanding, Indian Postal service treats the letter as the private property of the person it is addressed to after the mail had been posted. Once my dear wife by mistake sent the letter addressed to her to my cousin and the letter addressed to my cousin to herself. When I cam back from work, I learned of that. I had to plead with the post master to swich the mails. (It was quite a tough ask. at last I explained, naughty card would end up with my cousin instead of my wife, post master half heartedly agreed to exchange)! There was a Tamizh movie by the name 'Anjal petty 520' based on this theme.

That same mail when not delivered is considered as the private property of the sender. In any case, once a mail is despatched, it becomes the private mail since it is a private property.

Cheers!

Once again I have to disagree with you here. Extracted below are the decided Court rulings in India as to whom Postal department acts as an agent to: whether to the sender or the receiver:

" Where the post office is not nominated as an agent of the receiver then by posting the letter the sender constitutes the post office his agent and when the letter is delivered to the receiver, it is delivered by the agent of the sender and not of the receiver."

""Section 44 Post Office Act implies that the remitter, even after the money had been delevered to the post office for transmission by 'money order', retains control over it and he can, before the money is paid to the payee require the Post Office to pay it back to him or to pay tosuch other person other than the original payee as he should direct.The consent of the payee is unnecessary for the carrying out of any such direction or requisition by the remitter which only shows that the Post Office is not the agent of the payee."

You may have online verification here: Harbhagwan Ram Lal vs Punjab And Pepsu Financiers Ltd. on 26 November, 1968

 

[Raghy]

Once again I have to disagree with you here. Extracted below are the decided Court rulings in India as to whom Postal department acts as an agent to: whether to the sender or the receiver:

" Where the post office is not nominated as an agent of the receiver then by posting the letter the sender constitutes the post office his agent and when the letter is delivered to the receiver, it is delivered by the agent of the sender and not of the receiver."

""Section 44 Post Office Act implies that the remitter, even after the money had been delevered to the post office for transmission by 'money order', retains control over it and he can, before the money is paid to the payee require the Post Office to pay it back to him or to pay tosuch other person other than the original payee as he should direct.The consent of the payee is unnecessary for the carrying out of any such direction or requisition by the remitter which only shows that the Post Office is not the agent of the payee."

You may have online verification here: Harbhagwan Ram Lal vs Punjab And Pepsu Financiers Ltd. on 26 November, 1968

This site has become a court house! everyone has started talking law and suits! :scared: I just wrote my experience! I am not going to argue! :bolt:

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

This site has become a court house! everyone has started talking law and suits! :scared: I just wrote my experience! I am not going to argue! :bolt:

Cheers!

You cannot escape. I hold all your "un-edited" messages/original posting in my trash box. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sarang]

Thanks for the informative reply. Perhaps the right word in my post is 'custodian and transient owner'. I learnt this, I think, from a kalki's novel; once the letter is dropped in the letter box, the sender cannot claim it. The acknowledgement tags for registered letters or reply strip in money orders are for confirming delivery. Returning to the sender if not delivered for any reason is a different matter. Indian postal act 18** may cover many such issues - ownership, acceptance and delivery conditions, transit damage, fine etc.

My issue is, whether the receiver has the right to make public the contents of the message he has received, when there is no explicit understanding or contract between the two. I feel, that the receiver is right to make the contents pubic if he wants; especially if the content is caustic. Of course, a third person cannot divulge the contents. This applies to e-messages too - my opinion.

We once sent a very nasty and abusive letter to a supplier (multiple defaults) by email. The ceo saw the cc and wanted the mail to be withdrawn. We had a system in which the mails first went to the server, and mails were sent or received every half an hour. We had the time to stop the message, but not the technology - the IT manager had gone home. Anyway, it was a happy ending, as the supplier visited us the next day in a fighting mood - and delivery issues were sorted out.

I am for making select incoming messages public unless the sender requests confidentiality. This rule does not apply to messages which abuse.

I think you are not correct here. As per my understanding of law:

(i) the postal department never has ownership of the letters dropped into the box etc. and thus cannot have property rights over it;

(ii) the postal deparment acts as an "agent" - the question is to whom it acts as an agent - to the poster of the letter or the receiver of the letter.

In the court decided cases (read it long time back in college days), the postal department acts as an "agent" of the sender of the letter, till such time the letter is actually received by the addressee. That is why (i) mere evidence of proof of having mailed the letter (by UPC or registered post) is considered sufficient notice; (ii) in case of registered posts, if the registration receipt accompanied by request to return the letter to the person sending post, are considered favourably.

(iii) If the letter is returned undelivered to the sender, the ownership vests with the sender and the addressee is denied of the ownership or acting on the undelivered letter, even if he learns through other means existence of such letter (and its contents) posted to him

 

[sarang]

Legal or not, highly dangerous. Vali and ravana lost their crown and life.

Coveting neighbors wife is not illegal, but not an accepted behavior.

 

[sarang]

Me too think so.

Greetings.

To my understanding, Indian Postal service treats the letter as the private property of the person it is addressed to after the mail had been posted. Once my dear wife by mistake sent the letter addressed to her to my cousin and the letter addressed to my cousin to herself. When I cam back from work, I learned of that. I had to plead with the post master to swich the mails. (It was quite a tough ask. at last I explained, naughty card would end up with my cousin instead of my wife, post master half heartedly agreed to exchange)! There was a Tamizh movie by the name 'Anjal petty 520' based on this theme.

That same mail when not delivered is considered as the private property of the sender. In any case, once a mail is despatched, it becomes the private mail since it is a private property.

Cheers!

 

[sarang]

Section 44: The intent of the act seems to be the money is to be returned or paid to a nominated payee if it cannot be delivered to the first payee. It clearly says, "if not paid to the payee". Legal luminaries can interpret in multiple ways.

44. Power for remitter to recall money order or alter name of payee.- (1) Subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by rules made under section 43, prescribe in respect of the levy of additional rates of commission or fees or any other matters, a person remitting money through the Post Office by means of a money order may require that the amount of the order, if not paid to the payee, be repaid to him, or be paid to such person other than the original payee as he may direct.(2) If neither the payee nor the remitter of a money order can be found, and if within the period of one year from the date of the issue of the order no claim is made by such payee or remitter, the amount of such order shall not be claimable from the Government.

Once again I have to disagree with you here. Extracted below are the decided Court rulings in India as to whom Postal department acts as an agent to: whether to the sender or the receiver:

" Where the post office is not nominated as an agent of the receiver then by posting the letter the sender constitutes the post office his agent and when the letter is delivered to the receiver, it is delivered by the agent of the sender and not of the receiver."

""Section 44 Post Office Act implies that the remitter, even after the money had been delevered to the post office for transmission by 'money order', retains control over it and he can, before the money is paid to the payee require the Post Office to pay it back to him or to pay tosuch other person other than the original payee as he should direct.The consent of the payee is unnecessary for the carrying out of any such direction or requisition by the remitter which only shows that the Post Office is not the agent of the payee."

You may have online verification here: Harbhagwan Ram Lal vs Punjab And Pepsu Financiers Ltd. on 26 November, 1968

 

[Raji Ram]

You cannot escape. I hold all your "un-edited" messages/original posting in my trash box. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please don't scare Sri. Raghy any more, Sir!! He has already posted this smiley - :scared:
The next one might be - :faint: