total failure of individual rights!!
Damn idiot judge, they could of went in and deleted the email. deactivating it is too much. not the persons fault at all but the banks stupidity. yet the judge is making the user at fault.
In a highly unusual move, a federal judge has ordered Google to deactivate the email account of a user who was mistakenly sent confidential financial information by a bank.
The order, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in the northern district of California, also requires Google to disclose the Gmail account holder's identity and contact information. The Gmail user hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing.
The ruling stems from a monumental error by the Wilson, Wyo.-based Rocky Mountain Bank. On Aug. 12, the bank mistakenly sent names, addresses, social security numbers and loan information of more than 1,300 customers to a Gmail address. When the bank realized the problem, it sent a message to that same address asking the recipient to contact the bank and destroy the file without opening it. No one responded, so the bank contacted Google to ask for information about the account holder.
In keeping with its privacy policy, Google told the bank it would have to get a court order to obtain such data. The bank then filed papers asking a court to order Google to disclose the information and deactivate the account.
The bank attempted to file its papers under seal, but U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte denied that request. Earlier this week, the case was transferred to Ware from Whyte.
Some lawyers say the Ware's order is problematic because it affects the Gmail account holder's First Amendment rights to communicate online, as well as his or her privacy rights.
"It's outrageous that the bank asked for this, and it's outrageous that the court granted it," says John Morris, general counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology. "What right does the bank have and go suspend the email account of a completely innocent person?"
He adds: "At the end of the day, the bank obviously screwed up. But it should not be bringing a lawsuit against two completely innocent parties and disrupting one of the innocent party's email contact to the world."
Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, adds that the judge's order could have significant ramifications for the Gmail account holder. "Losing an email account is a big deal," he said. "It's very disconcerting to think that a judge could simply order my account deactivated."
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=114264
In a highly unusual move, a federal judge has ordered Google to deactivate the email account of a user who was mistakenly sent confidential financial information by a bank.
The order, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in the northern district of California, also requires Google to disclose the Gmail account holder's identity and contact information. The Gmail user hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing.
The ruling stems from a monumental error by the Wilson, Wyo.-based Rocky Mountain Bank. On Aug. 12, the bank mistakenly sent names, addresses, social security numbers and loan information of more than 1,300 customers to a Gmail address. When the bank realized the problem, it sent a message to that same address asking the recipient to contact the bank and destroy the file without opening it. No one responded, so the bank contacted Google to ask for information about the account holder.
In keeping with its privacy policy, Google told the bank it would have to get a court order to obtain such data. The bank then filed papers asking a court to order Google to disclose the information and deactivate the account.
The bank attempted to file its papers under seal, but U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte denied that request. Earlier this week, the case was transferred to Ware from Whyte.
Some lawyers say the Ware's order is problematic because it affects the Gmail account holder's First Amendment rights to communicate online, as well as his or her privacy rights.
"It's outrageous that the bank asked for this, and it's outrageous that the court granted it," says John Morris, general counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology. "What right does the bank have and go suspend the email account of a completely innocent person?"
He adds: "At the end of the day, the bank obviously screwed up. But it should not be bringing a lawsuit against two completely innocent parties and disrupting one of the innocent party's email contact to the world."
Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, adds that the judge's order could have significant ramifications for the Gmail account holder. "Losing an email account is a big deal," he said. "It's very disconcerting to think that a judge could simply order my account deactivated."
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=114264
Comments
-
I'm not sure I disagree with the judge. Suppose, the bank sent info like that to a house via snail mail. They realize their mistake, try to contact the homeowner and get no response? You potentially have an information bomb. You need to get all that info back a.s.a.p. before some thing stupid happens such as someone else getting their hands on it and using and/or selling the info. The bank and the judge did the right thing. It's an economic and red tape disaster waiting to happen. However, the defendant has every right in the world to seek compensation for his/her troubles.
-
Idlewild wrote: I'm not sure I disagree with the judge. Suppose, the bank sent info like that to a house via snail mail. They realize their mistake, try to contact the homeowner and get no response? You potentially have an information bomb. You need to get all that info back a.s.a.p. before some thing stupid happens such as someone else getting their hands on it and using and/or selling the info. The bank and the judge did the right thing. It's an economic and red tape disaster waiting to happen. However, the defendant has every right in the world to seek compensation for his/her troubles.
lets go with your story. say person gets this mail and they think its junk mail they throw it out and thought nothing of it. so are they gonna go to his house and search for that piece of mail? and make him a none person?
emails are tied to alot of things. its hard to start over again.
or this one.
guy standing at his home minding his own business, next thing you know some some stupid guy at some company some where decides to crank call the guy while drunk. and spills some company secrets and have the judge come over and disconnect his phone!!!
basically its not the individual at fault at all. there are many ways to get around the problem. they could notified and protect the credit scores of all those people whos info has been compromise. instead they go after the totally innocent guy.
they could of order google to go into the guys mail and deleted all the info. but this is just outrages! -
Some doctor's office sent 20+ pages of confidential patient records to my home office fax machine. It had private test results for multiple patients. I called the office and left a message so that they wouldn't do it again, but dang.
-
Sounds more like the account was barely used, hence the lack of response. The owner may be the last one to hear about the case.
-
armchair_warrior wrote: [quote=Idlewild]I'm not sure I disagree with the judge. Suppose, the bank sent info like that to a house via snail mail. They realize their mistake, try to contact the homeowner and get no response? You potentially have an information bomb. You need to get all that info back a.s.a.p. before some thing stupid happens such as someone else getting their hands on it and using and/or selling the info. The bank and the judge did the right thing. It's an economic and red tape disaster waiting to happen. However, the defendant has every right in the world to seek compensation for his/her troubles.
lets go with your story. say person gets this mail and they think its junk mail they throw it out and thought nothing of it. so are they gonna go to his house and search for that piece of mail? and make him a none person?
emails are tied to alot of things. its hard to start over again.
or this one.
guy standing at his home minding his own business, next thing you know some some stupid guy at some company some where decides to crank call the guy while drunk. and spills some company secrets and have the judge come over and disconnect his phone!!!
basically its not the individual at fault at all. there are many ways to get around the problem. they could notified and protect the credit scores of all those people whos info has been compromise. instead they go after the totally innocent guy.
they could of order google to go into the guys mail and deleted all the info. but this is just outrages!
Everybody did the right thing, Armchair. According to the article the company left a message for the person to simply delete the email and contact the bank. No response was given. They asked Google for access and Google did the right thing saying "No, we need a court order". A judge heard the arguments, decided that this type of information could probably be hacked into, maybe mass CC'd or BC'd or whatever and issued an Order to nip this in the bud. What else could have been done? You say they could have gone into his email account and erase. Same thing. It's an invasion. You also say that informing just the people listed on the documents is good enough? 1,400 people? How long would that take? And then the 1400 people have to change their SS#'s, PIN#'s and speak with the credit companies and so-on? You're not being rational. A fucked up, incompetent mistake happened. The bank tried to correct it "in-house", couldn't, and went the legal route. I will also guarantee that the bank will be fined and required to do actions in terms of SS#'s and credit ratings.
Now, the email account holder has an absolute right to sue the bank for making his life miserable and whatever monetary damages occurring because of all this nonsense.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds