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."
Ha. Hahahaha. Ha.
Already blocked
[FUCK BETA]
If this is interesting information, it has already been copied from the Google server to somebody's personal computer.
Barbara Striesand never returns my e-mails either.
Massive privacy breach....e-mailed a report...containing sensitive details...e-mailed...
The problem here isn't that it was sent to the wrong account. It's that it was e-mailed AT ALL.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
"avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs." I'd say it's too late for that now, mate.
...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.
The problem with that is, is if was sent to your email address, you are the intended recipient.
This all seems fairly reasonable to me.
You have enough people doing enough things, eventually someone is going to make a stupid mistake. In hindsight there is probably plenty of stuff that could have or should have been in place to prevent this, but then there always is when looking back at a problem.
Google seems to be acting reasonably. Putting a process in place where companies can quickly and conveniently "take back" emails seems like a bad idea. Requiring a court order ensures that this goes through a strict process and is well documented. Google doesn't seem to be "fighting" this so much as saying "get a court to tell us to and we'll happily do it for you".
And I don't get the impression that Goldman Sachs is pounding their fists on the desk here either. They are doing everything they can to repair or prevent damage caused by a mistake they made. They are seeking out the court order and probably other stuff internally.
These disclaimers are worthless (legally), as you can't accept conditions just by receiving something; none of the heads of contract are satisfied. However, if they motivate the receiving party to do what you want them to then they serve their purpose.
[FUCK BETA]
What's your email address? Because, I want to send you an email with a giant disclosure at the end which says you owe me $1 million if you read the email.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I've also seen a creditable argument that because the disclaimer is at the end of the email, and you would have to read the email and therefore all of it's content before reading the disclaimer that warns you not to, that they are particularly worthless.
At least every lawyer type e-mail I get has a giant disclaimer at the end if you are NOT the intended recipient. Perhaps GS should have considered using that? Over paid dopes.
Every time I see one of those worthless disclaimers, I crack up. You can't unring a bell and I am under NO obligation to delete any email that was sent to me if it was addressed to my email account. If you typed the wrong address, that's your problem, not mine.
Step back and see what Goldman Sachs is asking. What if they are lying? How does Google know what Goldman Sachs is asking is valid. What would happen if the user was suppose to get email, suddenly finds that email not longer present because Goldman Sachs or someone else asked Google to delete it.
Think Potsy, think.
The real question is: should the court order such an action, and under what conditions?
Analogy alert: GS mistakenly sends me a letter by physical mail, then asks the post office (or asks a judge to order the post office) to send a mailman round, break into my house, and retrieve the letter. That clearly won't happen; worst case is that the judge would order me to surrender the letter. In case of email, is Google (under their terms & conditions and the letter of the law) allowed to "break into" my mailbox and remove the offending letter? And should they be?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Well, that's what the court is for. They get to decide if deleting this email is the right thing to do or not.
Who else would you suggest? Goldman Sachs is out, obviously. Would you rather Google be the one to decide?
How the fuck did they reach anyone at Google to get that response?!
Or what if this email was going to be evidence in a case against Goldman Sachs.
This is exactly why this goes through the courts. Sorting stuff like this out is kinda why courts exist.
Is google gonna have to run tech support everytime someone mistakenly sends an email?
Should the USPS intercept a letter upon request everytime someone made a mistake in sending it out?
No, it's not doggone reasonable. In fact, it's so unreasonable, that only a company with the pull of Goldman Sachs can demand it.
Do you think you go to google with the same request, they'll bow down to you? Do you think the courts would have granted it so fast?
Of course not, because it's a drain on their resource to help some dumbass rectify his own damn mistake.
As always, the analogy is flawed.
If the court ordered someone to break into your house and delete the attachment you saved locally, your analogy would hold. As it is, what GS is asking would be analogous to the court ordering the post office to remove the letter from your PO Box. Seems much more reasonable to me.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
make the same request when I accidentally reply-all to save myself 'reputational damage'? Or does this only work for large companies with lots of money?
You are incorrect. The email may be mis-addressed, but you are still the intended recipient of that email, as given by the fact the email envelope has you as the recipient. You therefore have a legally acceptable record that that individual email was sent directly to you.
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.
Unfortunately your analogy is also flawed... the mail _was_ addressed to the recipient. GS "wrote" the wrong address on the envelope.
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."
I've tried replying to let them know they sent the email to the wrong address (as requested in the disclaimer), along with a bill for $200 for the service. They never respond.
If the mail has not yet been delivered, then Google can stop the deliver and bill Goldman for the cost of stopping the delivery. If it has already been delivered, it is the property of the recipient. You can't do anything about it. At best Goldman can go after the recipient and get a gag order from the court. But Google is out of the picture.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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)
This is incorrect, and yet, the error does not matter.
Intent is known only by the sender. From the recipient's point of view, it does make sense to assume that an email addressed to you, is intended for you. That asumption is sometimes wrong, but it's a rare occurance. And whenever you're wrong, you won't know until you've already read some of the email. This really is the best any recipient can be reasonably expected to do.
The sender has all the power here (they get to decide whether or not to encrypt, for example, and which key to use (typically looked up by intended-recipient's name!!)) so I think they should have all the responsibility.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Can, Should, and Will Only Due So With A Valid Court Order are very different things.
;)
Sure they can, but how do you think every user of Google products will think if any company out there can say, "oops, didn't mean to send that, google, go fix my screw up and delete that from peoples inboxs."?
Should they do it? Maybe, but again, at this point we only have Goldman Sachs word that they 'should'. Maybe their entire story was fabricated and it was proof sent out by a whistleblower. Maybe it wasn't sent by a whistleblower, but it is proof of illegal activity that should be turned over to the appropriate legal or regulatory agency. We only have the companies word for it, and do companies ever lie about stuff like that?
So Google is going with "Will only due so with a valid court order" on this. Good choice. You won't piss off the customers because a court made you do it, and you won't get yourself in legal trouble because a court made you do it. Yep, this is the right choice if they have any functioning brain cells at all.
There's also a fourth option of just plain refuse. Claim the mail system is sacrosanct and it won't be messed with. Of course there are two big problems with this. First is almost nobody will believe you. Second is you are then looking at a big as legal battle you probably won't win because you are not the federal government. That's why I didn't list this one in the beginning, though I did mention it at the end to avoid having a million responses pointing this one out.
That's my say, disagree or whatever
Through a combination of carelessness and cluelessness, this employee managed to put hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of customer funds at risk.
Sending information like this via email is where the mistake happened, not mistyping the address. Email is not secure even if it is sent to the right address you have no control over how it gets there and it could be easily intercepted and read enroute. Their reputation loss has already occurred by admitting that they use email for highly sensitive information like this.