Slashdot Mirror
Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails
rudy_wayne (414635) writes A Goldman Sachs contractor was testing internal changes made to Goldman Sachs system and prepared a report with sensitive client information, including details on brokerage accounts. The report was accidentally e-mailed to a 'gmail.com' address rather than the correct 'gs.com' address. Google told Goldman Sachs on June 26 that it couldn't just reach into Gmail and delete the e-mail without a court order. Goldman Sachs filed with the New York Supreme Court, requesting "emergency relief" to avoid a privacy violation and "avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs."
...companies in the world.
This is a test case for them, it's all about control and it's all about the money.
Do you guys remember this: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."?
Well, you better remember it - and understand what it means, because your FREEDOM is at stake!
Cryptic to you?
READ BETWEEN THE LINES!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
How the fuck did they reach anyone at Google to get that response?!
You get what you pay for.
Yes, Goldman Sachs bought themselves a nice compliant government. I would say they got a bargain.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
As disturbing is that the threat of "reputational damage" is enough to get a court on your side.
The United States government should not be helping people or business protect their reputation from their own mistakes. It opens a floodgate to potential abuses. This request should have been laughed out of court. "You screwed up, bub; you deal with the consequences."
I can see this ruling being used as a precedent in many future law cases.
The ancient Roman Horace (65-8 bce) said: "Once a word has been allowed to escape, it cannot be recalled."
More recently, Omar, the Tentmaker (died ca 1123 ce) said:
"The moving finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety or Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
Maybe. The GP raises an interesting point though.
Is the "address" (johndoe123@example.com) the same as its user (Mike Somehow who uses the previously mentioned e-mail address)?
Real life example: I rent an apartment which was previously occupied by a foreign citizen. I receive snail mail addressed to:
- The owner
- Previous renter
- Me
- My wife
- Unspecified recipient (SPAM)
- Others (named people who don't live at my address).
I am legally entitled to open mail addressed to me and "unspecified recipient". Now, in case of an e-mail address, the same could apply. The actual recipient might not be the one who "lives" there, and there might be elements that specifically mention a different recipient than me. Since an e-mail is a non-physical item, I can't really "return without opening" but I could destroy it (after or instead of reading its contents).
Is this covered by the GMail EULA? I confess I've never read the whole damn thing.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)