var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

Optimistic Prime

September 26, 2009 11:39 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Deactivating the account seems harsh. The guy probably thought is was spam and deleted it right away. I would've chucked it. If I did open it, I would've contacted the bank, maybe. It seems bringing errors to the attention of a company is more problem than it's worth. I had Amazon send me someone else's packing slip as well as mine once. They were so confused as to why I would call and tell them someone may not be getting their shipment...

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

zacox

September 27, 2009 2:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Everybody is missing the big picture, here. Googles terms of service specifically state that they can delete or deactivate any account at any time for any purpose. The account holder should have backed up his or her personal emails prior to this incident, so therefore does not have a case against Google if they delete his or her data.

The account holder does not have a \"right\" to online access. I doubt the framers sought to include personal communication in the first amendment right to free speech.

The account holder also does not have a case against the bank, because the bank did not cause a loss of actual money. Google accounts are free, so there is legally no value in having access to one. Destroying something that's valuable generates liability for replacement, but destroy something with zero value and replacement is moot.

I certainly believe this account holder was shafted, but legally he or she is entitled to absolutely nothing.

$\"user-pic\"$

jamesuss

September 28, 2009 1:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: You doubt the framers sought to include personal communication in the first amendment right to free speech? Really? I agree with just about everything else you posted, but that is ridiculous. Of course they intended personal communication to be included.

$\"user-pic\"$

JeffMc

September 27, 2009 7:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: I think you're missing the big picture. There is now precedent to shut down someone's email account (ISP? Corporate? Personally owned domain?) because someone \"accidentally\" sent them confidential information.

No good can come of that.

$\"user-pic\"$

zacox

September 27, 2009 7:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JeffMc: You are absolutely correct. I am completely against a judge issuing this order. Requiring Google to deactivate the account was over the top. Were the account holder to appeal the judge's order, he or she may very well win. But, there is really nothing to win because the free account is already gone.

However, I was responding to other comments that he should be compensated or is in some other way entitled.

$\"user-pic\"$

seishino

October 2, 2009 8:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: I believe the objection is not that Google has no right to shut down the account. But that the court has no right to order Google to shut down the account. Whether or not Google has the right to do this is inconsequential.

In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the forced shutdown of the account a form of seizing property, which frequently requires compensation in the US. Of course, I believe that means GOOGLE would have legal entitlement to the value of that customer, not necessarily the customer having legal entitlement to the value of their e-mail.

Either way, it is a ruling that can only have been spawned from a hideous misreading of the law, or a judge that was more fearful than thoughtful.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ragman

September 27, 2009 4:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: \"The account holder should have backed up his or her personal emails prior to this incident, so therefore does not have a case against Google if they delete his or her data.\"
They still need to be able to receive email that would then get bounced, possibly putting the innocent party in TOS violations for their own accounts that may require a valid email address.

$\"user-pic\"$

zacox

September 27, 2009 6:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ragman: Sorry. Google specifically states it can refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason, with or without prior notice. It also says it can modify or remove data on the service anytime, too.

@Snowblind: The nature of the account holder's purpose for using Google is irrelevant. Business and personal users are subject to the same terms of service. Found here: [www.google.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

Ragman

September 27, 2009 8:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: Just because you put something in an agreement like that doesn't mean it will protect you in court. Actions like Googles can lead to legislation that prohibits outright deactivation or modification of data without notification.

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

September 27, 2009 5:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ragman:
Also, who the hell does that? Nobody expects to have their account deactivated, especially if they know they're not doing anything illicit with it. Zacox is full of crap.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zacox: Unless the account was for business purposes (ebay, for example), then they would be able to make a case case.

$\"user-pic\"$

formatc

September 27, 2009 4:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Optimistic Prime: The story certainly sounds stranger if you picture it as a physical shipment. \"A bank accidentally shipped me a package full of personal data to my house. They said I can't go back there, so now I need to find a new place to live.\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

DaBull

September 26, 2009 11:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I can't believe that a judge would grant that request. Looks like I should back up my g-mailbox before a bank sends me someones information and my account gets deleted.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DaBull: I do back mine up. I use gmail as POP mail so all my email is downloaded from the server every time it checks, and that gets backed up frequently.

Now - I point this out only because what if that's what this guy/girl does? Are they then not only going to disable the acct., but then take the computer? Where does this stop, o judge who doesn't care about personal freedoms?

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DaBull: And to think I thought that g-mail was one to be trusted.. What about those poor AOL users?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@icodowd: Gmail can't be trusted because they demanded a court order before trampling on a user's privacy? Good luck finding a legitimate email provider that'll defy court orders for you.

$\"user-pic\"$

ecwis

September 27, 2009 1:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Communist Pope: Google really needed to take a stand on this. They cannot act like every other email provider while at the same time expect to maintain their leadership position. Google has lots of lawyers; they at least need to put up a fight. The Gmail user violated NO laws and has no reason to have their account shut down. Google has a history of being resistant so having a court order is no excuse for trampling on the rights of its users.

$\"user-pic\"$

David in Brasil

September 27, 2009 11:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis: Wait.. read this thing again. Google *did* resist until there was a legitimate court order instructing them to delete the account. They didn't act just upon the bank's say-so. The fault lies with the judge who ordered the account closed because it was sent something the owner didn't even request (well, and the bank for being idiots in the first place).

To me, paying consequences for receiving unsolicited information is stupid. But that's the direction that our legal system is headed. It's dangerous.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@David in Brasil: @drizzt380: Thank you. I think you've put it perfectly. Google did what they could do, they didn't just roll on their backs, belly up, and say here, have the info. And why SHOULD they do the civil disobedience thing?

The fact that the receiver is paying the consequence is ridiculous, and as David in Brasil points out, dangerous. But this we should be putting squarely on the bank for pursuing this and on the judge for allowing it.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 11:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis:
Actually, having a court order is the exact perfect excuse. No matter what you want to believe, Google is a big business. They don't do things that they don't think will help them somehow.

If Google didn't follow the court order, they would be breaking the law. They don't have their own set of rules to play by. They aren't Gandhi. They can't do the whole civil disobedience thing.

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Communist Pope: I had assumed that the Consumerist article had the more accurate wording than the MediaPost one. I'm obviously wrong.

What I now mean is: \"If this can happen to G-Mail users, imagine what will happen to those AOL ones!\"

Please refer to my revised comment.

$\"user-pic\"$

MikeB

September 27, 2009 12:29 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@icodowd: gmail(Google) didn't do anything wrong, they told the bank that they needed a court order to release the name of the account holder. The bank went to court and for strange idiotic reason the judge ordered the account closed...

@DaBull: That is why I have all emails forwarded to another account, in case something happens to my first account. Set this up after I thought I was hacked and it took a week to get back in.

$\"user-pic\"$

gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*

September 27, 2009 1:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeB: i have a system of forwards set up...
due to the fact that, over the past 4 years, i've used 3 .edu accounts, a roadrunner account, and 2 gmail accounts, i've set them up to all forward to a single account (which i rarely give out)

$\"user-pic\"$

Tmoney02

September 27, 2009 4:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: the only problem with the system of forwards, is that if the bank found out the document was sent to those other emails, it would stand to reason that all your emails would ask to be shut down, including your main one where everything ends up. I dont see how it could save someone from this.

$\"user-pic\"$

bwkk

September 27, 2009 1:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: So what if the Bank employee's mistyped email address happens to be your \"final single account\"?

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeB: My bad, I didn't realize the discrepancies between the wording in the two articles.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

September 26, 2009 11:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Getting your Gmail account shut down isn't such a big deal. Open a new account. Switch to Yahoo. Nothing huge.

Yet at the same time, what does shutting down the account have to do with the larger issue? What it comes down to is that a stupid bank employee sent this information to a Gmail account and the information may or may not have been used in inappropriate ways. You need to figure out whether it was used in an inappropriate way and/or destroy it. The person who received it probably marked it as spam, which deletes it after 30 days. Either that or s/he archived it and never looked at it.

Sounds like a judge who doesn't know his Intertubes.

19 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 12:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: \"What it comes down to is that a stupid bank employee sent this information to a Gmail account\"

I work at a bank (am actually posting this from work, heh). Our policy here is quite simple.
We are not allowed to email anything even vaguely work related to anyone who isn't in the company, and we're required to use the company-maintained Outlook Address Book when doing so.

This situation is one of those reasons. The other is that email is inherently insecure, subject to snooping, spoofing and all sorts of shenanigans.

If we actually need to communicate with someone electronically, we have a secure messaging system built into our online banking system, and everything goes through there.

Problem solved.

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

September 27, 2009 6:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama:
I suspect you'd think it was a big deal if it happened to you. Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a change. In other words, be a friggin' human.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:11 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Let's say you've had a PO box that you've used as your main contact address for the past 15 years. Everyone you know and everyone you have any personal or business dealings with sends your mail to that address. Some of these people you don't keep in very regular contact with, so you aren't even sure who all of the people that use this address are. And you also store all of your old correspondence inside that PO box because it's a feature of having the PO box.

Now, someone sends something to your address which looks like a scam, so you just disregard it or throw it away. Then, a court decides that you can never use that PO box again, and you don't have access to any of your old correspondence. Is that okay with you?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@samurailynn: Comparing email to postal mail is completely asinine. Among many other things, one generally doesn't keep all of their physical mail within their PO box.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 2:40 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: It's not just the reasons above, but I believe to get a Gmail account, you must get an invite Email from someone, you can't just go to their site to register it.

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

September 27, 2009 2:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@theblackdog_Happy250thGuinness!: That's changed, you can now just sign up. It was only while it was in beta you needed an invite (yes, they beta that long)

$\"user-pic\"$

Xerloq

September 27, 2009 2:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: So, say you receive a letter at your home from Rocky Mountain Bank that is meant for someone else. The bank goes to court and the judge orders your house condemned.

Yeah, not a big deal.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:58 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: It's a big deal if it's your contact email for other sites. You won't be able to use \"change password\" or \"change email addy\" functions that require confirmation from your old (Gmail) account.

$\"user-pic\"$

kmw2

September 27, 2009 12:23 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: If my gmail account got deactivated, I'd lose almost three years worth of personal and professional correspondence, contacts, and historical data. I'd say that's a pretty big deal.

$\"user-pic\"$

Etoiles

September 27, 2009 12:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: The entirety of my wedding planning is in GMail and Google Docs. With two weeks to go, if I got my account shut down because some jackass sent me mail I shouldn't have? That would be the moment when mild-mannered bride would become bridezilla before everyone's eyes.

$\"user-pic\"$

David in Brasil

September 27, 2009 11:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Etoiles: You're right, but the problem is even worse than what we're discussing here. Imagine the day when you piss off the 12 year old brat living next to you and he/she decides to get even by sending you grainy bathroom mirror pic of themselves with their shirt off. Now you're in possession of child porn. And if you don't think that would ruin your life...

The law is an ass where this is concerned.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@David in Brasil: THANK YOU.

I mean, yes, it would be totally inconvenient for me to lose access to all my GMail account features, but people seem to be missing the point. Behavior like this by the courts sets a VERY bad legal precedent. Really bad.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Not a problem? I guess you don't use email for, I don't know, everything.

A bank messed up. The bank should take the fall, not the person that got the email. Ironically, the email probably went right into their spam box.

Makes me not want to use gmail, ever.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tmoney02

September 27, 2009 4:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nerdtalker: Makes me not want to use gmail, ever.

as Michael Belisle pointed out, its not at all gmails fault. They have to follow out court orders. Its the banks and the judges. This could happen to any internet email site that exists. Which basically means this is a huge internet privacy/rights issue that needs to be fixed if it stands. Hopefully this will be overturned.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

September 27, 2009 12:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nerdtalker: Makes me not want to use gmail, ever.

Do you mean Gmail specifically? Or free internet email, in general?

I ask because it's not Gmail's fault the judge is a moron.

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

September 27, 2009 2:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Makes you wonder what would have happened if it were sent to a corporate E-mail account, would the judge have told the corporation that they had to shut down that employee's E-mail account?

$\"user-pic\"$

chrylis

September 27, 2009 12:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nerdtalker: It's not Google's fault; they really don't have a choice other than to comply with the court order, and any other e-mail provider would have done the same. The party at fault is the bank (and partially the judge), and the account holder should sue the bank.

$\"user-pic\"$

dssstrkl

September 27, 2009 12:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: My Google account isn't just my email (that I use EVERY DAY), but also calendars, access to Google Code, Groups, my RSS feeds, and Google Voice. Its a really big fucking deal to get your account locked out because of a bank's fuckup which would most likely end up in my spam folder and get deleted without ever hitting my eyeballs.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 11:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: yeah, and sorry but even if you put aside the first amendment rights, I have 17,000 emails in my gmail account of which I would not want to lose because of someone else's error.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 11:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: It's not a big deal because it's inconvenient, it's a big deal because it raises HUGE issues about privacy in the age of the intertubes. I repeat: HUGE issues. If a bank can make a mistake that results in a judge ordering that someone's email account be shut down (and privacy invaded in the process), what's to stop them from ordering your email invaded or shut down for other minor issues? As you pointed out, the person who received the email likely did NOTHING with it, aka did nothing illegal. And yet, a JUDGE ordered their email account deactivated. If that doesn't terrify you, you aren't paying attention.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole

September 26, 2009 11:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: It is a big deal. If they freeze you out of your account, you'll loose access to any messages, old or new, not to mention having to track down every single website, person, or company that has that email on file for you as a means of contact and change it. WHat if this person uses the gmail address for work purposes? Or school?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

rdclark

September 26, 2009 11:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A bank employee accidentally misaddresses an envelope and snail-mails confidential information to the wrong person. What happens next? A judge orders some poor shlub's US Postal Service to be cut off?

The email has been sent. The recipient has already done whatever he's going to do with it -- copied it, deleted it, printed it out, forwarded it to 10,000 other people. Receiving misaddressed email is no crime, but I think perhaps what the judge ordered is. And clearly the judge is clueless.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pmcpa4

September 27, 2009 2:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rdclark: Thank you! I was just thinking this!

$\"user-pic\"$

Xerloq

September 27, 2009 2:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rdclark: No, it's more like the judge orders you to move.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

BTW, if the employee had mis-snail-mailed a letter of significance the courts would have ordered the USPS to seize all of the mail going to the wrong receipiant such that the sender would have opportunity to retrieve the mis-mailed letter. After the sender retrieved the letter, the balance of the mail would be returned to rightful owner.

In the words of my DA friend, good luck trying to claim the mis-mailed letter is significant enough to justify the action. But if you can convince the courts you will get your letter back if it has not already been delivered.

$\"user-pic\"$

rdclark

September 27, 2009 1:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean:

But in this analogy the errant mail has already been delivered. Stopping the recipient's mail service cannot possibly provide redress to the sender.

$\"user-pic\"$

Poisonous Taoist

September 27, 2009 2:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rdclark: Right. From now on, any time I get an email containing what looks like sensitive info? I'm downloading it, emailing it to other dummy email accounts I have, and saving it to all my flash drives. If my email account gets locked, I'll turn up with the file saying \"Look, I have it already. I'm not gonna do anything with it. Give me back my account.\"

Hopefully, the judge will realize that it would make no sense to keep my account locked considering I already have the file.

$\"user-pic\"$

smonkey

September 28, 2009 3:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Poisonous Taoist: You forget.. judges can order the guns (police) to back up their rulings. Seizing all your electronic items would probably be on the top of the list. I'm sure your friends would love it if the Judge went after them as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

Difdi

October 2, 2009 5:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@smonkey: This sort of thing is why citizens have guns too. Just the possibilities involved tend to prevent this sort of unconstitutional abuse.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

chocobo

September 26, 2009 11:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ehh... I know this won't be popular, but sometimes you have to just look at the whole picture.

The guy absolutely did not deserve to have his Gmail account locked. But I have to agree with the judge. A mistake was made, and they need to take immediate actions to prevent leak of personal info of thousands of people.

It does considerably less harm to temporarily freeze an innocent person's email, than it does to leave the problem unfixed with all of that personal information in someone's inbox, with no idea who might be accessing it.

I think the rule of law is very important, but it's also important to recognize unusual circumstances where it's OK to ignore it. Sort of like how if you're rushing to get your pregnant wife to the hospital at 3 AM on an open road with no other traffic, you shouldn't be given a ticket for driving 10mph over the limit.

10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 1:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo:
Closing the recipients Gmail account isn't the way to go. The judge needs to hold the bank responsible and perhaps punish the bank for the lack of integrity of its own data security.
Sacking and holding the stupid bank employee isn't the way to go either - he just works there and follows their procedures.

Judges need to understand who are the victims are here and why.
Victim 1. The bank customer who's details were leaked.
Victim 2. The Gmail account holder.
Not Victim - The Bank

$\"user-pic\"$

dantsea

September 27, 2009 1:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: Do you understand how email, or any transfer of any file on the Internet, works? This is closing the barn door after the horses have run out, it's a worthless and futile gesture that doesn't do anything to safeguard anyone. That's why there's tons of WTFery going on around here.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: Why stop at closing the guy's gmail account? why not take him into custody? You know, for the good of all those people on the spreadsheet? He may have copied the file, so we should probably scrub his entire computer just to be safe.

The point I'm making is that closing his gmail account is just as much a violation of his rights as taking him into custody for a crime he didn't commit would be. The bank dropped the ball here, no question. They sent the spreadsheet to the wrong person. While I agree that the personal info of the people on that spreadsheet should be protected, this is not the way to do it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

$\"user-pic\"$

HalOfBorg

September 27, 2009 12:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: What if he:

1) saved it to his harddrive.
2) saved it to his thumb drive.
3) saved it on CD.
4) saved it on DVD.
5) emailed it to the world.
6) deleted it.

How does it help - in any way - assuming it WAS just some random email typo - to cancel or suspend his account?

Yeh, if it's still IN there somewhere, let google stomp it to bits for him. Bet he says Thanks.

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HalOfBorg:
Judge's Ruling:

1) Deactivate it!
2) Deactivate it!
3) Deactivate it!
4) Attempt to watch the data and then deactivate it!
5) Deactivate the world!
6) Restore it, seize control, deactivate it!

$\"user-pic\"$

ohenry

September 27, 2009 12:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: I agree with you, totally. As long as the freeze is temporary, that is, which would seem to make the most sense. I don't see why they would need to delete the account entirely when they could just freeze it, get rid of the sensitive information (i.e. that one email) and then restore access.

Also, I think people are overreacting a bit, or at the very least not quite getting the point. The fact that the judge ordered the account to be frozen doesn't mean that the bank is going to get off of this case without any sort of punishment or forced security reform. This is just a step in the process of keeping information safe on the way. Everyone keeps saying \"Well, obviously this is sending the message to companies that they don't need to protect data\", well, that's not the case. Locking the email account wasn't the corrective action, it was just a safety measure while they hammer the rest of this out.

For the record, I also think that it's lame that the guy had to have his email account locked up, and I'd be pissed off too. But the idea that locking his account is somehow shifting the blame in this situation is stupid.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: Wow, really, big picture? What does it say to companies that they no longer need to protect their data, and that they get to completely violate the rights, privacy, and property of innocent people if they make a mistake? What kind of insane world do you live in?

$\"user-pic\"$

chrylis

September 27, 2009 12:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: Absolutely incorrect. The issue before the court isn't what causes less harm, it's about who's responsible for this fiasco. The bank sent the e-mail, and the bank should be held liable for whatever damage is suffered.

If the bank had taken the most elementary precautions (e.g., encrypted the e-mail), this wouldn't have been an issue.

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: Especially since they were sending thousands of peoples' SSN's and such to a outside (@gmail) address. You'd think there would be some sort of protocol in place that would prohibit outside communication of such personal data.

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: This is assuming it is only a temporary freeze. What I got from it was that it was deactivated, or turned off. I don't know about you, but I have some stuff I definitely don't want to lose in my e-mail account.

Alternatively, if it was temporary, it would be a big deal, but maybe not to the scale of permanently losing all your personal data.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

September 26, 2009 11:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

BIG lawsuit against the bank. I smell it coming. Heads need to roll.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Difdi

September 27, 2009 6:58 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: On that poor guy's shoes, I'd start looking into ways to sue the judge for incompetence, have him recalled, disbarred, whatever.

If the judge is THAT pig-ignorant of technology, he really should have sought education from a neutral party BEFORE he ordered the electronic equivalent of evicting someone from their house.

It really sets a nasty precedent if not overturned. Just imagine, instead of a SLAPP suit, they can just turn off your net access if you criticize a corporation!

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: First, lets hope it's not BoA. They're being sued for billions of trillions!

Second, we're all assuming the account is one that an actual person is using and/or keeping track of. If it's some random account or spam robot, no big deal.. Until a lawyer sues for them.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@icodowd: Even if it is a spam bot, this is a big deal because of the legal precedent it sets. Google was forced by the court to shut down the account on the bank's say so, and that's not ok. If that decision stands, it leaves the door open for businesses to request that an email address be shut down for other reasons. For example, Cash4Gold could potentially request that their former employee's email account be shut down for talking trash, and have a legal leg to stand on following this decision.

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 1:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@What The Geek: That's what I meant. It's not physically a big deal if nobody's data is lost, but even if the account holder doesn't take legal action, somebody will.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

plasticbiker

September 26, 2009 11:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This sets a disturbing precedent. I'm hoping there is an appeal and it gets overturned.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@plasticbiker: Even if it was, it would still be up to Google to reinstate the account.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

shadow67

September 27, 2009 12:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

i think we shud sent the bank people a few of our personal information and then file a suit to close the banks email accounts.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

September 27, 2009 6:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@shadow67:
Seconded.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

swedub

September 27, 2009 12:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

How much do you want to bet that the bank doesn't go through the same effort to notify each account holder their information has been compromised?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@swedub: The article says they have.. but who knows??

[www.jhnewsandguide.com]

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Homerjay likes Belgiumese Puke Porn

September 27, 2009 12:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know what I would hate more, being locked out of my Gmail account or being locked out of my Facebook account.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 12:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Homerjay is utterly alone.: utterly f*cked it what i'd be if EITHER were shut down.

the precedent is an orwellian wet-dream & needs to be overturned asap.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 12:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

We should just freeze the employee's e-mail account too! I mean, if you can lose all your personal data for receiving the wrong e-mail, shouldn't you do the same for sending it?

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

September 27, 2009 12:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Another article closer to the bank's office:

[www.jhnewsandguide.com]

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

scoosdad

September 27, 2009 1:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: The bank says in that article: \"It appears that the incorrect e-mail address may be dormant....\"

So this may be a case of Gmail looking at the email account, and saw that it was used twice in a span of two days a long time ago and then never used again since then. This may be a big deal over nothing and perhaps the judge and Google knew that.

$\"user-pic\"$

Osagasu

September 27, 2009 4:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@scoosdad:
It can still be used as a legal precedent by any lawyer that knows what they're doing and many that don't.

Just because it may not have been in use doesn't mean the ruling won't be used later, which is the majority of the problem we have.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

hardcle

September 27, 2009 12:29 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What I don't understand is why wasn't this data encrypted? The employee and the bank should be brought up on charges for sending personal customer information via unencrypted email. If it had been encrypted there wouldn't have been any problem for anyone.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

cmdrsass

September 27, 2009 2:11 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@hardcle: Those laws aren't on the books in most states, yet, but it's coming.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

September 27, 2009 12:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

That's why there are courts of appeal; to correct mistakes by trial judges. I would have no problem if the court enjoined Google from deleting the mistaken mail from its servers, or transferring it elsewhere which would preserve the bank's access to the information, but to take action against an innocent third party who did not initiate anything in the case is simply wrong. Kastermonster is right. This really is a huge invasion of someone's privacy to correct the bank's screwup and if the judge is upheld, anyone's e-mail account is subject to the same issues.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

So, if you want to find out who some anonymous Internet poster is, just \"accidentally\" send them a file?

I can't wait to see the lawsuits that come from this.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@strathmeyer: Not only that, but if you want to screw with someone you don't like, you can get them locked out of their email account, apparently.

;)

Seriously though, this isn't the Gmail user's fault. It's a very dangerous precedent. Not that it changes anything in principle, but I do hope that it's not an active account.

One of the reasons I have web-based email accounts is to have access anywhere at any time. So if my computer breaks, I don't lose anything. So if I borrow someone else's, I can find that picture I need. The good thing about web-based mail is it's all there unless you delete it. I would be very, very screwed if I got locked out of my accounts. Yes I download important things from time to time and also put them on a separate off-site back-up, but not everything every day.

$\"user-pic\"$

Difdi

September 27, 2009 7:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ScarletsWalk: Exactly. Say something a corporation doesn't like, but is truthful? Instead of a SLAPP suit, they just email you confidential information, then go to a court, and based on the precedent this case sets, get your ability to communicate online turned off entirely.

Sure, you can get another account. But you lose all stored emails. Friends don't know your new address, and will likely treat attempts to reconnect (at least initially) as a phishing attempt. If you haven't memorized your address book (or it's huge) you lose that too.

Aside from the first amendment issues, this has the potential to bankrupt a business. Which raises another nasty possibility: Why compete with a local business, when you can \"accidentally-intentionally\" email them something sensitive and get they locked out of their business address?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: Exactly. Find someone you don't like and \"accidentally\" send them confidential stuff, then file court orders to shut them down even if they never actually looked at the email.

Even worse, send them kiddie porn. In today's word, many of us have push emails on our phones. So click send and that kiddie porn now shows up in somebody's inbox and on their phone. So someone can be in possession of it even if they didn't ask for it and never opened the email.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

onshisan

September 27, 2009 12:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Because my Gmail account consists entirely of my fairly common first name and very common last name, I often receive messages intended for other people by the same name.

When it is manifestly evident that these communications are significant (e.g. a message from a client to the not-me intended recipient, or a reply from that person's client, or a message from a bank or realtor or other such entity) I reply to the sender informing them that I am not, in fact, the person they meant to reach. Usually this results in a brief apology, followed by ANOTHER mis-directed message... to which I send another reply, and so on.

This happen so often (and mostly for the same not-me guy) that it's hard to believe. This person is either giving out the wrong email address to companies and people with whom he does significant business, or he's giving out his contact information in such a way that it is very frequently mis-interpreted.

In light of this story, how should I change my behaviour? I've been sent detailed information about not-me's pension from a UK bank, invoices for the purchase of meteorological data and jet fuel (!!) from the US and multiple Carribean islands, updates on the sale of real estate in California from a broker... I try to do what I think is the right thing by notifying the sender that their intended recipient has not gotten the information that they tried to transmit. But by doing so, do I expose myself to more liability than if I did nothing? Or would doing nothing make me subject to the court-ordered revelation of my personal information and the deactivation of my (very important to me) email account?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

indy_kid

September 27, 2009 9:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@onshisan: Publish it ALL on-line! Let people know just how inept these companies are and what kinds of info they're sending around unencrypted! You might edit the messages for some critical info, but try to leave as much of it as possible.

I suspect you're free from any prosecution if you do so, 1st Amendment and all that.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 2:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@onshisan: You should probably delete your e-mail and change your name to something less common...before some crazy judge does it for you.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

arcticJKL

September 27, 2009 12:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why didnt he contact the bank and delete the file?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 1:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@arcticJKL: They could have had that account but not used it. They could have forgot about it. They could have been a no-reply business e-mail. They could have been a spambot. It could have been sent to spam. They could have thought it was spam. They could have been stealing their identities. They could be compiling an article on why data isn't safe. They could be doing an article on irony.

It doesn't matter who it happened to or why they didn't respond, it's still some random error that led to someone's account being deactivated.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

krispykrink

September 27, 2009 12:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

So if a Bank accidentally snail mails you someone's account info, they can condemn your house. Right?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Difdi

September 27, 2009 7:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@krispykrink: Precedent-wise? Arguably yes. But very few judges are as ignorant of property law as they are of cyber-law. It's quite likely that a judge would realize the sort of abuse of the system the company is requesting if they tried to get a house condemned over a snail mailed mistake.

On the other hand, unless the account-holder in question hacked into the bank's records and inserted his email in place of the proper one in that employee's address book, no judge should order the shutdown of the online equivalent of someone's house either. So it's possible.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 12:58 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What I find disturbing is the possibility that the \"victim\" in question hasn't checked his/her inbox, so he/she has no idea what's going on, and will find their Gmail account disabled. Granted, the bank did try to contact \"the victim\", but still. The bank's employee screwed up, and they should be reprimanded for it. Penalizing an innocent victim for someone else's careless mistake is another mistake all in its own. Sounds like arresting the victim of a hit-and-run and letting the other driver go.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheDarkJester: Or worse, suppose they are like many of us and use \"push\" email with Google?

If someone sends mail to my Gmail account, it instantly ends up on my phone, attachments and all. I don't even have an iPhone either but it works just fine for me.

If this user is similar, then they may have already seen the email immediately. I would have had it been sent to me. And if it had been me, the file would now be on my phone totally out of range of anything the bank would be able to do. Not even my cell carrier can delete that file, and nothing to stop me from sending it back out again.

The moral is: don't email stuff like this. You can't call it back. You can't ever be sure where it goes.

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 1:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheDarkJester: And I have a G-mail account I haven't checked in a while..

Hmm...

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"A Wyoming bank sent an e-mail containing sensitive customer data to the wrong Gmail account,\"

1. Why were they sending ANY sensitive materials to a Gmail account? An unlimited 3rd party mailbox service that keeps documents forever.

2. Why not shut down Google as they also have access to that mailbox?

3. Does Google even know who owns that mailbox? I always sign up with minimal contact information. Google probably has nothing of relevance to reveal.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Colonel Jack O'Neill

September 27, 2009 1:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The email should've been encrypted, matter fact, everything that has personal info in it should be encrypted.
The only thing that would've needed to be done was just remove it from the gmail server.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What is the purpose of closing the email account?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

critters

September 27, 2009 1:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ludicrous decision by the judge. Freeze the account if you must and extract the e-mail and all traces, but deleting an account because of a stupid bank mistake is beyond overkill.

I can't get over the idiocy of the bank sending such vital information via e-mail in the first place. I wouldn't even send a credit card number via e-mail why on earth would a bank send such sensitive information this way--to a g-mail account?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 1:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@critters: Having personal experience with banks, I can see why this might happen. I do not, however, see how anyone would actually do it.

","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

brettt

September 27, 2009 2:11 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is basically comitting a crime, then killing the witnesses.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

pmcpa4

September 27, 2009 2:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yea... just a question, what would happen if they mailed this information... would the judge order the destruction of your mailbox and or house???

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

September 27, 2009 2:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pmcpa4: Nah, they'd probably have you locked up in a dark cell somewhere and the key on it's way to a grinder.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

CompyPaq

September 27, 2009 2:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think that an imprtant thing here was that Google only gave up the information with a court order.

I also think that the judge was wrong for shutting down the account, but at the same time, if your bank compromised your info, wouldn't you want the bank to make a good effort at getting it back?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

September 27, 2009 2:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@CompyPaq: I'd want the bank to fire the dips**t that was sending out my personal information unencrypted and unprotected.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

September 27, 2009 2:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Email is an inherently-insecure medium. Personal information should NEVER have been emailed to ANYONE at all. That it went to the wrong address only makes a bad situation worse ... it does not mean that emailing stuff anywhere is a good idea. Even if it went to the right address, it might still be intercepted. At the very least the administrator of the email server it went to, would have access to the contents of that message.

The bottom line is that this should never have happened. For the bank to use courts to go after other people — because they made the asinine choice to send things via an insecure medium in the first place — is inexcusable.

As for closing someone's Gmail account over something s/he didn't even do ... it's beyond the pale that anyone would even consider doing such a thing. But what else does one expect, from lawyers?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

September 27, 2009 2:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Rather than punish the completely innocent Gmail user, the bank employee that screwed up needs to have his/her employment terminated.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 3:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AngryK9: It depends on if it was or was not protocol to send personal data such as this over outside e-mail. Sure, it was a one letter mistake, but if the bank *let* it happen, is it the fault of both? If, however, the bank had something stating \"you can not send any sensitive data to an outside party\", I agree, the employee should be terminated.

This isn't to say that one letter mistakes aren't important. It's totally a case-by-case basis on whether or not to fire the employee. If she was exceptional, had a spotless record, and was deemed a valuable asset to the bank, perhaps she could have her \"one more chance.\"

Finally, the employee and bank were not the ones that were pushing to have the account deactivated. They simply realized their mistakes and made the appropriate action to ensure their customers' privacy. It was the judge who made Google deactivate the account. Should we be punishing the employee for the judge's ruling?

$\"user-pic\"$

sqlrob

September 27, 2009 3:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@icodowd: \"If she was exceptional, had a spotless record, and was deemed a valuable asset to the bank, perhaps she could have her \"one more chance.\"\"

Let's see... Send 1300+ records when it should've been 1, and sent it to the wrong address.

Yeah, exceptional star employee there.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

MikeB

September 27, 2009 2:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: The courts would probably not have become involved. Gmail is a private email. While corporate email is owned by the corporation. The bank would have contacted the corporation, and the corporation would have taken steps to retrieve the email.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:29 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am left wondering why on earth a bank employee would be sending this kind of information to a Google account anyway.
Most places I know have their own email servers that are company controlled. If a business is relying on Gmail for its company email it should not be in business.....

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 4:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@lemortede: It sounds like the e-mail was originated internally, but being sent to an outside party. Which is still reeeeallly stupid, no matter why it's being sent.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 3:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I read the original article, but it's not clear what the basis for the original request was. What law gives them the right to even request that this information be turned over? I don't have access to PACER, so I can't pull the filings, but I'd be curios to see what the basis actually is.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

larkknot

September 27, 2009 7:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: In a nutshell, the original request wasn't for what was sent out. The employee actually screwed up at least three times in the sending of this e-mail. Once by sending it to the wrong account, and a second time by attaching the incorrect file, which happens to be one with sensative information about many accounts, included, and a third time by not checking over the e-mail before they sent it.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 1:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@larkknot:
I meant the original request on the court for relief. What basis in law did the bank have to ask the court to do this?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

seegull

September 27, 2009 4:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

My bank has this message after all e-mail communication:

\"This message is intended only for the specified recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This communication represents the originator's personal views, which may not reflect those of [The Bank]. ... If you receive this E-Mail in error, please immediately notify the sender.\"

Perhaps this type of notice provides some legal basis for suing for information (even though it was sent to the totally wrong person)?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

DrLumen

September 27, 2009 4:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm am astounded that the bank allowed this to happen. And then the judge to rule that it was the recipients fault for receiving the email. (shakes head)

Plus, after all this time, considering the time to contact google for the info, file court papers and then to have a hearing, the people's info contained in the spread still have not been notified. Except, of course, the bank contacting them to enroll them in a $14.95 per month credit protection plan.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

September 27, 2009 4:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, the judge is only 63. I was expecting him to be much older.
[en.wikipedia.org]

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Bruce

September 27, 2009 4:54 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The customers of Rocky Mountain Bank should be fleeing to other banks in droves as it's apparent that they simply can't be trusted to protect their customer's privacy in a meaningful way.

As for the Judge, a person attains that position based on the assumption that person has demonstrated the ability to exercise proper *judgement* and will do so in the future.

A Judge has the luxury of time to research the law and all the facets of a case before making a ruling and then issue a judgement on the matter in a legal, logical and proper way.

How this Judge came to the conclusion that the *best* thing to do in this case was to curtail the 1st amendment rights of a wholly innocent person and quite possibly placing their personal or business life in turmoil for something that is not their fault is utterly inexcusable.

It's a good thing our system has an appeals process and in this case, it should be used and used right now.

Any losses suffered by the GMail user whose account was shut down should be covered by the bank as it was their actions that started this whole process going.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Brent

September 27, 2009 4:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If you'd like to contact the bank and let them know what you think, their website is: [www.rockymountainbank.com]

","

$\"user-pic\"$

fizil

September 27, 2009 6:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

From their website:
\"Rocky Mountain Bank...Rock Solid (see what it means for you)\"

If this person had responded to the bank's request to contact them, then they wouldn't have to take such harsh actions to protect their error. The user's inactivity probably point to them not using their gmail account religiously like most of us.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

fizil

September 27, 2009 6:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well...assuming it didn't go to their junk folder.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

DH405

September 27, 2009 6:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why not just order that the ONE FREAKING EMAIL be deleted? Why expose someone's ID and shut down their entire account over that? Sounds like this judge needs a class on how computers work.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 8:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"This is akin to locking the barn door after the horse is already ten miles away.\"

We don't want those horses EVER coming back.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 11:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Let's extend the argument to other media.

Suppose the bank accidentally faxed the details to the wrong number. Are they going to ask the telco to turn off the phone number? Prevent the accidental recipient from buying fax paper?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

September 27, 2009 3:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Julius Seizure. (the CANUCK one): No, they won't turn off the phone number. Instead, they will seal your home/office where the fax machine is so you can't get access to the sensitive data.

Would you want to be kept out of your own home because some stupid employee at some stupid bank accidentally mailed something sensitive to you?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 5:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Sorry, the irony in my post didn't make it through the filter. You and I agree this whole thing is borderline insane in the brain.

I'm also trying to get my head around a bank emailing what should be secure data at all.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

September 27, 2009 12:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Was this social engineering? Or just...duh.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Tairom

September 27, 2009 12:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Haven't read every single comment, so I apologize if this has been stated already.

This action, though take in order to protect some sensitive information, seems to set a precedent that I see huge potential for abuse. Imagine if you will, the government, lets say Homeland Security, suspects an individual of some criminal activity. All they have to do is get some \"friendly\" institution to email this individual some sensitive information, then requests the courts order this email account locked down for review to remove said information. I do not believe anyone here honestly thinks that they will contain themselves to just the court ordered information.

Also many people using email programs like Outlook and such have them set to delete email from the server once retrieved. These people will then face further court orders for physical computers to ensure that the sensitive information is removed from there as well.

I honestly fear the courts have handed down a ruling with true abuse potential.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

MEoip

September 27, 2009 1:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I cannot agree with what the judge did, I don't see them issuing a search warrant to find Postal Mail in my house if it is mis-sent. The bank messed up on many levels and if I were the guy I would go after them for seizing my email account with personal information init. I'd also go after them if I were the customer, they violated my terms with them, privacy and communication laws. If I had a mortgage with them I'd try to declare it void due to a violation of the terms of our agreement.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 1:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm surprised no one here has commented on one thing the bank CEO Coleman Andrews said. He said:

\"It was a honest mistake by a diligent, capable employee. What we don't want to do and won't do is round up the suspects and start firing people. With human institutions, mistakes happen.\"

Yeah, right, protect the \"diligent, capable employee\" who sent the email but fuck the totally innocent person who received it. Coleman Andrews, you are a dickwad beyond belief!

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

gothamguy

September 27, 2009 6:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Bogart's Falcon: Just Forget the Other Name:

I agree, considering that the email was only supposed to contain information on the 1 customer that asked for it, but the employee accidentally included information on 1300+ customers.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 1, 2009 7:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gothamguy: People like him totally amaze me.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 2:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: but it's not just mail involved here. I use calendars, documents, notebook, photos, and a LOT of that is for WORK.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

trillium

September 27, 2009 2:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The banks electronic communication policy REALLY needs to be examined. If you are sending a document to an external email address it shouldn't contain sensitive customer data to begin with. If it is necessary to send that email, then it should be encrypted. That is just common sense.

If I am not mistaken, doesn't the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act cover \"Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information\"? If that is the case, tt would be the bank's employee who is in direct violation of privacy laws.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 4:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That must really suck. Some random guy's email address gets shut down because a bank screwed up with the email. Like some people said he probably thought it was spam, at least I would've especially if I didn't have an account at that bank. What's bad is the guy probably had a lot of important emails or perhaps that was even his main (or only) way of contacting certain people and now he can't because of bank error.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 5:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nerdtalker: Well, except that this would happen with ANY email service, if the bank mailed you this and the court ordered the service provider to suspend the account.

Unless you run your own email server. In which case, the costs and the up-time would be the LEAST of your concerns.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

gothamguy

September 27, 2009 6:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If I read this correctly, the bank is asking to withdraw the suit and vacate the order.

[www.docstoc.com]

Of course, that means no appellate review of the judge's decision. Also notable is that the only defendant is google, meaning the account holder isn't even considered a party. I guess that is a pretty clear indication of google's view as to who actually owns and controls the information sent via gmail.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

s017jrs

September 27, 2009 7:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That's an interesting reaction by the bank. It would seem that the bank screwed up, not the random gmail user.
There's more to this story. Banks don't often go after random gmail accounts that they accidentally sent personal info to. I was doing a job similar to the guy that had to go after this gmail user for a giant global evil bank for a while, it's just not how it's done.
There's more to this story someone isn't telling us...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

sashazur

September 27, 2009 7:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Google is right in asking for a court order before caving to this. And if they *do* have to go ahead with this shut down, they should at least set up auto-forwarding for the poor schmuck who received this spreadsheet, so that even though they might lose all their old emails, at least they won't have to tell everyone their new email address.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

wkiernan

September 28, 2009 12:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If this is a problem for you (that Google might make your old emails inaccessible) then get an email client such as Thunderbird and set it up to access your Gmail account through their pop3 server (pop.gmail.com). When you start Thunderbird it will download all your emails and store them in a file on your home computer. What's more, all your old emails will still be accessible not only on your home computer but also through the web interface (unless Google cancels your account, in which case at least you'll have the copies on your home computer).

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

MikeVx

September 28, 2009 3:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wkiernan: Ah, someone with some sense.

E-mail is intrinsically insecure, and web mail is just plain stupid unless you have it specifically for dealing with people who won't wait for you to get back from a trip. I have just the setup you describe due to a couple of people who will only send to a non-gmail address if that's all they have for you. I used to only check it when I was expecting a message there, now it gets the POP scan from my home system. Everything else goes to a POP account on a small regional ISP.

If you must use web mail at all, all important data should be copied to storage under your control the moment you touch it. If you do not do this, and the web mail account is shut down or the content destroyed, you are screwed, and you deserve it.

I keep as little as possible on storage controlled by others. The only exception is my on-line file storage service, and the contents of that are encrypted before uploading with a key long enough to give Stephen Hawking nightmares. The on-line storage serves as my off-site backup for critical data. I am betting that my local storage and my on-line storage will not be trashed at the same time. I do the encryption and uploading manually, the only thing I have to trust the storage firm to do is store my encrypted goop, and as they are getting paid for this, I expect them to get it right.

All that being said, the judge is still being a class 1 jerk.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 1:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This judge not only is against 1st ammendment proctections but also the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which turns your email account in legal terms in a mailbox, which means if its addressed to you it is yours to do with what you would like.

Also even if the account holder did call the bank, the call center would have been confused and ignored it. I have called a few companies sending invoices to my account on error and they were confused with me calling them.

If I were the account holder I would be filing a civil lawsuit against the bank and the employee that sent the email. Google is clearly not in the wrong due to their TOS and the court order. However Zacox post is incorrect as the TOS only clears Google, the bank and bank employee are not protected by the TOS.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 2:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Krispykrink; that was kinda what i was thinking, except instead of condem, rifle through.

I was thinking that there would be a huge debate over the fact that a court, 'arbitrarily' is allowing a bank to obtain sensitive and personal information from a private entity.

The account has been shut down and that sucks. You could lose important mail, or lose business/money from missing mail, but I think there's a bigger picture issue.

The account is closed and the identity of the account holder will be revealed to the bank. This is also along with the contents of the account.

I think thats the dangerous precedent. I mean. Why not just 'accententally' send sensitve information to every inbox in the world and turn them all over for no other reason then they've got nothing better to do on a thursday afternoon.

I'm sure you're bound to hit on a few where so very interesting information is sure to be found.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

rosvicl

September 28, 2009 3:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

And how much spam and phishing email do most of us get? I regularly get stuff claiming to be from banks I've never heard of, from Caisses Desjardin (whose ATMs I sometimes use on vacation), and from large banks I don't do business with, like Chase.

I delete all of them, unopened and without even looking at the subject line. If something showed up from Rocky Mountain Bank, no matter the subject line, that's straight into the trash (either by hand or via my spam filters), because I know I have no business with them. So they are unlikely to send me real mail (in the sense of it being from that bank) and even less likely to send anything I'd want. A follow-up saying \"Please delete our previous message\"? I wouldn't open that either. (And one saying \"Important information\" or \"Security/Privacy issue\"--also straight to the trash.

The only way the gmail account holder is at all likely to have even noticed that message is if they happen to have an account at that bank.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 28, 2009 4:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You know, I might buy this travesty of justice as necessary for the greater good if the judge had also ordered the bank to contact the people whose data was emailed out and offer to cover the costs of identity-protection. But the victims of the bank's incompetance are still out there, and they don't even know it.

The law says that if someone mails me a package I didn't order/ask for, I get to keep it, even if it was sent in error. Does that apply to emails? I'm wondering if the recepient of the email might have a legal right to sell the data to a third party.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Ronin-Democrat

September 29, 2009 4:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Can't google tell whether the email was read and the attachment downloaded?
If the attachment wasn't downloaded google should delete the email and that's the end of the story.

Imagine this poor shmooh is using this address on his resume and has been out of work for a while and an offer finally gets sent only to ounce back to the sender.....

Really mr judge, this is your problem solving skills at work...

FAIL!

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

guinness

December 28, 2009 1:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wachovia Bank lost back-up tapes going via an express service (FedEx, UPS or other) a few years ago. The tapes contained tens of thousands of account holders information. All the account holders were notified by mail and offered a free subscription to an identity theft service for 12 months. I don't think the solution matched the potential damage. The judge in this Gmail incident clearly doesn't understand the security issues.

");