Slashdot Mirror
Bank Goofs, and Judge Orders Gmail Account Nuked
An anonymous reader writes "The Rocky Mountain Bank, based in Wyoming, accidentally sent confidential financial information to the wrong Gmail account. When Google refused to identify the innocent account owner's information, citing its privacy policy, the bank filed in Federal court to have the account deactivated and the user's information revealed. District Judge James Ware granted the bank's request, with the result that the user has had his email access cut off without any wrongdoing or knowledge of why." The Reg's earlier story says, "Rocky Mountain Bank had asked to court to keep its suit under seal, hoping to avoid panic among its customers and a 'surge of inquiry.' But obviously, this wasn't successful."
Why is the bank sending sensitive customer information to an email account hosted by a provider known for rifling though it's user's emails for information?
...if a judge in, say, Korea granted the same request to have a gmail account blocked, an innocent user in, say, Germany would loose his email...even if that email contained confidental and critical information to be used by its owner...this is quite pathetic and something should be put in place to stop these low level distric judges making decisions that could affect users across the globe.
Sewing for damages?
Fear the giant quilt of redress!
Graham
Wouldn't this be like having a package wrongly delivered to your house (through no fault of your own: the sender had the wrong address), and since it contained highly confidential information, a judge ordered your house to be burned to the ground? (Okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get my point.)
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
...wait. I mean, the account holder at this point has probably seen and done any damage that they are going to do with this information. How precisely is this going to help the bank's cause?
Of course, the account may be inactive and they may well have gotten to it before the person who owned it logged in again, but I do have to wonder why it is the recipient's problem that the bank sent this information. If the bank sent me that sort of information in the mail, does that mean that the county can order my house burned down to make sure I can't read that mail, even though I probably have already read it in full?
These decisions make no sense to me sometimes and it scares me because for some things I use only one email account and if my contacts disappeared, I might not be able to find some of these people again easily. I guess it's time to start backing up all my account data to my home machine by default.
This is yet another strike against "cloud computing" taking over. If they can order your account just plain zapped because a bank fucked up, I don't see how anyone's data is safe. At least if you had it stored at home or at work on your own machine, you'd at least know what the hell happened to it.
You're right Google isn't to blame in this case. Not given the fact that the judge could have told the bank to suck it up, transfer the account to new numbers, and pay a fine to their customer for failing to live up to their security responsibilities. Instead he decided to punish the innocent people in this case. The bank screwed up, the bank should be held accountable. Anything less is yet another miscarriage of justice.
The bank requested the user's identity. Google refused to provide it. So then the bank goes to court not only to get the user's identity but to deactivate the user's account. I'm missing the logic. Okay, maybe the bank fears that enough time has passed that the user has seen the errant email and wants to prevent the user from misusing the information. Now, that might work if the user does not have a local copy of the email. On the other hand, if the user has a local copy and is now angry at the bank for having had their gmail account shut down, the user, who might otherwise have done nothing, now has both the means and the motive to do something. Good move. Wouldn't it have been possible for Google to contact the gmail user and ask him to delete any local copies? And Google, presumably, could have deleted the email from its own servers. I like Google's policy of protecting user identities. But this whole mess sounds like two bureaucrats blindly following policy to the detriment of the end-users. Can't anyone think anymore?
linquendum tondere
His own server, perhaps?
Ezekiel 23:20
Perhaps you've not realised yet but banks aren't held responsible for their actions....
Requiem for the American Dream
but if a bank suddenly sent me 1,300 account's financial information, and then sent me an email telling me not to open it,
How would you feel if both of these emails ended up in your spam folder? You would not have noticed anything at all, but then suddenly, your account would be gone.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
and I will backfire badly
:?
It's not like it coud have been a typo, you capitalised it.
Is this some new americanism?
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
What email do you use that would disobey a judge's order?
His own server, perhaps?
What makes you think that you won't arrive home to find that all of your electronic equipment has been confiscated?
"Every one should email the bank banker@rmbank.com to ask them of their shady practices." No. Everyone should email some personal information to banker@rmbank.com, then insist that their domain be shut down.