Judge Orders Google To Deactivate User's Gmail Account

**Wailing Wombat** · 09-27-2009, 03:19 PM

This Just Doesn't Seem right.
I'd Hate to know that any old judge can just order my Gmail account closed.

Cam42 · 09-27-2009, 03:32 PM

Did the owner of the Gmail account do anything wrong?

el cabong · 09-27-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cam42

Did the owner of the Gmail account do anything wrong?

No.

In all honesty though, if that was my bank, I would definitely appreciate the aggressiveness in trying to protect their customers....

Of course, if they hadn't sent the information to the wrong e-mail address in the first place.

**Wailing Wombat** · 09-27-2009, 03:55 PM

maybe so, but in all reality, if the guy already read it, closing his gmail account ain't doing much.
Now if they Ordered google to delete just that message, that would make more sense to me.
But yeah, this is just stupid.

JerryLove · 09-27-2009, 04:22 PM

It does seem odd, though I'm also confident there are a lot of important missing facts.

I'm not saying the judge is right. In fact, if I were to use past cases to guess at what facts would lead to a disconnect order it would be that the bank has continued to send information to that email (I know of more than one case where someone has reached out to a bank or federal agency about emails coming into their box and been told "delete them, we won't act to stop ourselves from sending" (paraphrased)).

Still. It seems like the classic "security or liberty" question again decided "security".

normajean777 · 09-28-2009, 02:48 AM

Well can't really blame the bank itself for human error of an employee. I'm sure that employee felt pretty stupid after it happened, but in the name of the customers, the bank did the best thing possible. Of course if the guy on the gmail end intended to use that information, they would of already made copies of that email, thus making it useless to delete the account.

In the end the real life financial information of hundreds of people should trump the internet rights of a single private user. (Although I'd probably be ticked if I were the guy on the receiving end).

JerryLove · 09-28-2009, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

In the end the real life financial information of hundreds of people should trump the internet rights of a single private user. (Although I'd probably be ticked if I were the guy on the receiving end).

So what you are saying is that you have no right to feel secure in your property, and I (since I have access to financial information) could cut off email, even if it's something heavily involved in how you live your life, by sending it to you.

What if I mail it to you? Can I have your house removed? How about your phone service by leaving a voicemail?

At what point is being innocent sufficient to protect you from harm by the government?

Finally: If some terrorists say they will kill 100 people unless we kill your husband/wife. Should we kill them? Certainly 100 people trump 1.

**adamwagg** · 09-28-2009, 06:34 AM

Yeah it seems very silly. I shouldn't be able to get something you own/have access to shut down by sending something to you, that you have solicited. You should have to have done something wrong for that to happen. Its fair that the judge would give the bank the person's contact details, so the bank can get onto them - also I imagine its illegal to act on the information even though it was sent to them. But in absence of actual wrong doing, shutting down the account is pretty harsh and in my view wrong.

That's assuming the article is a fair representation of what happened.

Nate · 09-28-2009, 09:36 AM

Why on earth were they sending SSNs through email unencrypted anyway? It doesn't matter whose email address it went to, that was a stupid move on the bank's part. That file should have encrypted in such a way that only the intended recipient would have been able to open it, making the entire issue a moot point because there would have been no harm done by the human error of entering the wrong email address. The onus should be on the bank to correct their initial mistake, and then to protect against potential harm from their secondary error. They should be forced to go through an external IT / IP security audit at their own expense, and then to contact each and every person on the list and offer them free identity / credit monitoring for life at, again, the bank's own expense.

normajean777 · 09-28-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So what you are saying is that you have no right to feel secure in your property, and I (since I have access to financial information) could cut off email, even if it's something heavily involved in how you live your life, by sending it to you.

What if I mail it to you? Can I have your house removed? How about your phone service by leaving a voicemail?

At what point is being innocent sufficient to protect you from harm by the government?

Finally: If some terrorists say they will kill 100 people unless we kill your husband/wife. Should we kill them? Certainly 100 people trump 1.

Sure if the bank mails it to me by mistake, if they get a warrant, I would be ok with them searching my mailbox.

Google Terms of Service

Google maintains the right to disable anyone's account.

Quote:

13.3 Google may at any time, terminate its legal agreement with you if:

(A) you have breached any provision of the Terms (or have acted in manner which clearly shows that you do not intend to, or are unable to comply with the provisions of the Terms); or

(B) Google is required to do so by law (for example, where the provision of the Services to you is, or becomes, unlawful); or

(C) the partner with whom Google offered the Services to you has terminated its relationship with Google or ceased to offer the Services to you; or

(D) Google is transitioning to no longer providing the Services to users in the country in which you are resident or from which you use the service; or

(E) the provision of the Services to you by Google is, in Google’s opinion, no longer commercially viable.

Shutting down an email account that someone does not actually own, is way different than falling to terrorist demands.

JerryLove · 09-29-2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Sure if the bank mails it to me by mistake, if they get a warrant, I would be ok with them searching my mailbox.

The search wasn't my issue. The deactivation was.

Quote:

Google maintains the right to disable anyone's account.

I'm not discussing Google doing it, I'm discussing the government ordering it done.

Quote:

Shutting down an email account that someone does not actually own, is way different than falling to terrorist demands.

Sure. One is an action ("deactivation") and the other is a motivation ("because of terrorists").

Denying an innocent person of their rights because of the actions of another and denying an innocent person of their rights because of the actions of another, on the other hand, are the same thing.

Bryan · 09-30-2009, 10:06 AM

looks like it has been resolved.

Misfired e-mail was never viewed by Gmail user | InSecurity Complex - CNET News