Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

timothy posted about a month ago | from the need-to-turn-on-google-labs-for-unsend dept.

Google 346

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."

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reputational Damage (5, Funny)

what2123 (1116571) | about a month ago | (#47375479)

Ha. Hahahaha. Ha.

Re:Reputational Damage (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375537)

yeah. [rollingstone.com]

Re:Reputational Damage (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about a month ago | (#47375849)

Not that I care a hoot about bad things happening to GS... not that I believe this should have been emailed...

But I wish it weren't so easy to send a message to an unknown address, particularly one on a different server. I'd almost rather have a separate protocol for sending to known/safe addresses than for unknown addresses.

Re:Reputational Damage (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month ago | (#47375891)

That's why there are TLD's [wikipedia.org] just for that purpose.

Re:Reputational Damage (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about a month ago | (#47376011)

I don't see how that would help this situation. The "testing" was an internal business process, not an email system test. The email was a report related to testing.

Re: Reputational Damage (3, Informative)

Joe Johnson (3720117) | about a month ago | (#47375923)

Actually, exchange server does have security to help inforce this. Maybe they need new IT policies.

Re:Reputational Damage (3, Funny)

ketomax (2859503) | about a month ago | (#47376009)

Don't worry it will be automatically deleted after 30 days.

Unnecessary(?) Reputational Damage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375881)

"avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs."

I think the reputational damage is quite well deserved in this case.

why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375489)

why would this moron do that ffs. thats a problem on their end not with google.

Re:why? (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about a month ago | (#47375579)

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.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month ago | (#47375645)

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.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about a month ago | (#47375673)

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?

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about a month ago | (#47375703)

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.

Re:why? (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a month ago | (#47375663)

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?

Re:why? (2, Interesting)

Roadmaster (96317) | about a month ago | (#47375733)

Not an entirely accurate analogy. You own the house (and even if you didn't, the *mailbox* from which you retrieved the letter is distinct from the dwelling where you're likely to store it afterwards).

In gmail's case, google *owns* everything, and they just let you use the storage and mailbox assigned to you. So given a court order, they could remove the email without technically accessing anything that's actually yours.

Now, if the recipient makes a local copy, then your "break into my house" analogy would be more accurate, applying to the copy in the recipient's system.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375745)

Your analogy would have been perfect, except for the "break into my house" part. In this case, the mailbox is the one at the post office that you're renting from the man. Does the mailman have access to your pobox? Yes, at all times. Can they recover an item from there without breaking into anything? Sure, it is even in your rental contract.

Does all of this make sense with e-mails, which can be downloaded, saved and such?

No, not at all.

Re:why? (2)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month ago | (#47375761)

I agree. I think the most reasonable action is to try to contact the owner of this email address and explain the situation.
Maybe give him $1000 to sign a retroactive non-disclosure agreement. Odds are it's just a random normal person
that would gladly take $1000 to keep quiet. I get confidential emails for a large company that has a similiar domain
to one I own all the time. I probably average about 20 a day. I sometimes notify them but I mostly just delete them
and move on with my day. I sometimes feel bad as many of them are things like "I didn't receive my shipment" but
it's no different than it going into a black hole elsewhere and never getting read.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a month ago | (#47375773)

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.

Re:why? (0)

Bengie (1121981) | about a month ago | (#47375889)

Not to degrade your analogy, but if you get mail in your mailbox and it doesn't have your name or an exception like "or current resident", it's a federal crime to open it. I could get prison time for opening mail that is addressed to only my wife.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | about a month ago | (#47376023)

Unfortunately your analogy is also flawed... the mail _was_ addressed to the recipient. GS "wrote" the wrong address on the envelope.

Re:why? (1)

jcochran (309950) | about a month ago | (#47376039)

Ah, but by definition, the email that the unmentioned gmail.com user has is addressed to him or her. GS may have made a mistake in the address they sent it to, but it IS addressed to that gmail.com user.

Re:why? (1)

tiberus (258517) | about a month ago | (#47375711)

Granted it all seems reasonable, the issue I see is that it's not practical. You can't un-send an e-mail, not really. I have to control my desire to chuckle, in that sad sort of way, every time we get this sort of request internally. Unless the message was just messed in some way that keeps it from being sent, it's gone pretty much as soon as you hit send. We don't have a practical way to pull it off a system that isn't running Outlook (and even then if it's been read, it's a no go) and if the recipient has a Blackberry, pretty much all bets are off. I'm left wondering what real result or final state Goldman thinks they are going to achieve, the damage is already done. P.S. Wondering why anyone at Goldman ever sends anything to a GMail address . . .

Re:why? (3, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about a month ago | (#47375721)

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.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375775)

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.

Hindsight?

You know, I could have sworn we enacted a few policies at some pretty high levels with regards to how financial institutions protect private information...

Not to mention any sort of internal corporate mandate for encrypting sensitive documents, especially when using a known open medium such as email...

But what the fuck am I saying...we're talking about a financial institution that was involved in one of the largest financial scams of our time, and got away with it cleanly. Profited even.

When you end up profiting not following the rules, it should come as no surprise that shitty habits tend to get shittier for greedy elitists.

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375887)

Here is a lesson from this:

This is why divisions with critical info use some form of IRM/RMS. A mistake with a document being sent results in an encrypted document landing in the destination mailbox. Not a good thing, as the name and length of the file is readable... but not a complete leak either -- damage is mitigated. Plus, in Outlook this is as simple as clicking "do not forward" when attaching a document.

The parent has it right. These are two companies doing proper process/procedure to deal with a fuck-up, and nothing more.

Re:why? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47375903)

Requiring a court order ensures that this goes through a strict [corrupt] process...

Because we all know the courts never just rubber stamp orders from powerful people. This is how the "right to be forgotten" will evolve. Goldman Sachs would like nothing better than to have K's flashy thing to help us forget we elected it to be king of the world.

Wanted! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375493)

Did you get that email? I will offer $1000 for it.

Non-story. (5, Informative)

u38cg (607297) | about a month ago | (#47375495)

Already blocked [reuters.com]

Re:Non-story. (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a month ago | (#47375605)

Just because an issue was quickly resolved doesn't make it a non-story.

If Goldman Sachs uses the insecure SMTP protocol to transmit highly sensitive unencrypted data, they deserve the reputation damage (and a security audit).

Re:Non-story. (1)

Nos. (179609) | about a month ago | (#47375677)

First, nowhere does it say they were using SMTP, at least not that I saw. They are likely using SMTP with TLS.

Secondly, they had intended on sending that document within their own domain, which likely means it wouldn't have left the control of GS anyways. I'm not saying this is the best way to do things, but it's not necessarily insecure.

Re:Non-story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375679)

Sure. Everyone should send PGP-encrypted e-mail using IMAPS and an open source operating system, preferably running the Linux kernel. Meanwhile, in the real world...

Re:Non-story. (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a month ago | (#47375727)

Assuming the data was in some attachment (of could have been easily put in an attachment), how about just encrypting the attachment if it contains information so incredibly sensitive that it warrants a court order if it ever leaks out.

You don't need PGP, IMAP or any specific OS, just a small bit of common sense.

Re:Non-story. (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about a month ago | (#47375911)

You don't need PGP, IMAP or any specific OS, just a small bit of common sense.

Who needs common sense when you can hire an army of lawyers to clog up the courts with your idiocy?

Re:Non-story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375693)

The mail was sent June 23rd, that is not quickly resolved.

Re:Non-story. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month ago | (#47375611)

That doesn't make this a non-story, only a slightly out-of-date one.

Re:Non-story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375629)

I hope they charged GS a tidy fee of at least 1mm for this blocking service.

Re:Non-story. (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a month ago | (#47375759)

Now I want this interesting new gmail feature for my own personal use too! Call it beta if you want, go ahead, it seems to be working well enough already.

Who should I address my own Feature Request to at the GOOG? Maybe Fat Chance?

Re:Non-story. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month ago | (#47375865)

' Google said, "The Gmail account, DummyThrowawaySoICanSignUpForBigBrother9LiveFeed@gmail.com, had not been accessed in quite some time." '

Re:Non-story. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47375895)

Already blocked [reuters.com]

Yea no, the idea that blocking the email relieved the privacy concern is a joke. They sent that "massive privacy leak" or whatever, over the open internet. In fact, it sounds like they are routinely doing this, and their only concern is that they sent it to the wrong address. The real story here is that Goldman Sachs is sending this kind of info via email!!! In my job, if I were to send even your name and address via email outside our corporate network I'd be fired on the spot. The email traversed dozens of potentially compromised pieces of hardware on its way to google. There's no way to tell which route it took on the way to google. Goldman may think they have a peering agreement with google, but if they had an interface down on a core router when that email was sent it very well may have hit the open internet to get there. Blocking the email did absolutely nothing, the security issue is still real and the victim should still be notified. The fact that Goldman Sachs thinks this fixed the problem just means Goldman Sachs security controls are a joke.

Too late now (3, Insightful)

itzly (3699663) | about a month ago | (#47375505)

If this is interesting information, it has already been copied from the Google server to somebody's personal computer.

Re:Too late now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375777)

Exactly what I was thinking. If it came to me by accident, it would automatically be downloaded into Mail, then within the hour, just as automatically be safely backed up to Time Machine. What then? Heck, if I might not even see it for days, since I use email for very little and nothing important.

Too late mate... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375507)

avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs.

ye're too late, mate...

Re:Too late mate... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a month ago | (#47375779)

By about a decade.

Yeah (5, Funny)

boristdog (133725) | about a month ago | (#47375511)

Barbara Striesand never returns my e-mails either.

E-mail? (5, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | about a month ago | (#47375515)

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.

Re:E-mail? (5, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about a month ago | (#47375567)

Good luck explaining this to companies ... I'm still working over people who insist on sending confidential Excel spreadsheets by E-mail.

Re:E-mail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375619)

But they were encrypted right....right?!?

HA HA of course not

Re:E-mail? (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | about a month ago | (#47375753)

Don't put anything in an email that you wouldn't put on a postcard. If you MUST email sensitive information, encrypt it before sending -- the encryption is the envelope.

Re:E-mail? (5, Insightful)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about a month ago | (#47375573)

"testing internal changes... with sensitive client information"

Should violate all security policies right there.

Re:E-mail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375653)

Its unfortunate that there is no widely used (and more secure) alternative.

Email can be secured, but very few bother and this is unlikely to change.

There are lots of ways to ferry information around securely, but none even approach the universal nature of email.

Best you can do in these cases is provide a secure portal for a client to log into and view their report, but this will inevitably be met with "can't you just email it to me", and while you can ramble on about security till your teeth fall out, when it comes down to it, if that's what the client wants, that's what they are going to get.

No "sensitive data" filtering? (2)

swb (14022) | about a month ago | (#47375659)

There are more than a few email filtering products, some designed specifically to prevent sensitive data from being emailed at will via heuristics designed to detect sensitive information.

You would think as heavily regulated as Goldman is they would have these kinds of systems in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Re:No "sensitive data" filtering? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a month ago | (#47375771)

You would think as heavily regulated as Goldman is supposed to be they would have these kinds of systems in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

FTFY.

Regulations only work if they are actually enforced.

Re:E-mail? (1)

nahpets77 (866127) | about a month ago | (#47375683)

What if they had used encryption? Seems to me that had they send an encrypted attachment they wouldn't have had to go through all this trouble.

Re:E-mail? (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a month ago | (#47375855)

First, they don't understand it's not secure. Second, if the thought did cross their mind, then they wouldn't know who to ask for a secure solution or be patient enough to take the time to implement it.

Did companies learn nothing from Target?

Re:E-mail? (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a month ago | (#47375857)

Correct. Confidential data should only go over an encrypted email system like we use in health care to protect PHI. It's bizarre that they're eve able to send a confidential report over plaintext email, which is the equivalent of a postcard.

Too late (5, Funny)

Slizzo (3610599) | about a month ago | (#47375533)

"avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs." I'd say it's too late for that now, mate.

Disclaimer? (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a month ago | (#47375545)

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.

Re:Disclaimer? (5, Insightful)

blane.bramble (133160) | about a month ago | (#47375577)

The problem with that is, is if was sent to your email address, you are the intended recipient.

Re:Disclaimer? (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a month ago | (#47375877)

>The problem with that is, is if was sent to your email address, you are the intended recipient.

No you're not, when the email was sent by mistake.

Re:Disclaimer? (3, Informative)

blane.bramble (133160) | about a month ago | (#47375901)

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.

Re:Disclaimer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47376013)

Fortunately, the law uses a reasonable interpretation of the idea of "intent", instead of your autistic reading.

Re:Disclaimer? (5, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | about a month ago | (#47375597)

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.

Re:Disclaimer? (5, Insightful)

blane.bramble (133160) | about a month ago | (#47375625)

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.

Re:Disclaimer? (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about a month ago | (#47375617)

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.

Re:Disclaimer? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month ago | (#47375621)

What good is a disclaimer going to do? Are any instructions within legally, or in another way, enforceable?

Re:Disclaimer? (5, Informative)

fuzznutz (789413) | about a month ago | (#47375631)

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.

Non-disclaimer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375807)

I have occasionally replied to mails with such disclaimers with my own non-disclaimer:

I can not be bound by one-sided disclaimers. I have the right to read, disclose, forward, publish, and act on any mail sent to me. If you wish to keep your confidential secrets, start by not sending them to me. Non-disclosure agreements can be arranged, at a cost.

Re:Disclaimer? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a month ago | (#47375861)

***** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *****
This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didnt mean to send it to you. However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the intended recipient, or, you are a mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately delete yourself & destroy your computer! Once you have taken this action please contact us.. no you idiot, you cant use your computer, you just destroyed it, and by the way, you are also deleted, but we digress......

The Originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the information contained in this communication, unless they are the originator in which case they probably are liable and rightly so considering the content of the aforementioned communication.

In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mothers brothers wife wearing nothing but cami-knickers, and we will immediately refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Pal Meaty-Bites you bought when you went to Woolies yesterday.

We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are running Windows NT & everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the event that you do get this message then please note that we take no responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm,shit, where was I..umm, no matter what happens, IT's NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT!

The comments & opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing porno sites,would cut off my gonads and feed them to me for afternoon tea.

-- http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/s... [goldmark.org]

Re:Disclaimer? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375945)

But if the email goes to someone who isn't a selfish, hostile asshat like you are, they will do as asked and delete the email. Don't assume that everyone is like you.

Re:Disclaimer? (2)

PA23 (1708056) | about a month ago | (#47375639)

Can't image those disclaimers are enforceable...Plus I have a disclaimer on my email server that states that "any email received by this system is subject to full public disclosure at the sole discretion of the recipient. If you do not accept these terms do not transmit your email and disconnect now"

Goldman Sachs is one of the most dangerous... (3, Interesting)

MindPrison (864299) | about a month ago | (#47375557)

...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!

Re:Goldman Sachs is one of the most dangerous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375657)

Do you guys remember this: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."?

Yeah, didn't Petyr Baelish say that?

Checklist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375581)

[x] testing internal changes with access to live systems and actual data
[x] unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs
[x] privacy violation

I don't see any boxes left for Google to tick.

You get what you pay for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375583)

You get what you pay for. Goldman used a cut-rate contractor, and the person the contractor hired used live sensitive data to a live e-mail address? Instead of using test data and a test address? Goldman tried to get something done on the cheap instead of hiring someone, and it burned them badly. Good!

The court ought to make Goldman reveal who the contractor is, and how much the person who screwed up was getting paid. Was it a fair market wage? How much did the contractor keep versus the person doing the work?

Re:You get what you pay for... (3, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a month ago | (#47375963)

You get what you pay for.

Yes, Goldman Sachs bought themselves a nice compliant government. I would say they got a bargain.

Damn you autorrect! (1)

tommten (212387) | about a month ago | (#47375585)

hate it when it renders my information sensitive :)

Encrypted? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375591)

First of all they shouldn't be emailing that to anyone.
Second of all, why was it not encrypted???

Minor inconvenience (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a month ago | (#47375665)

"By contrast, Google faces little more than the minor inconvenience of intercepting a single email - an email that was indisputably sent in error," it added.

Losing a few thousand dollar is little more than a minor inconvenience for GS.
So how about it GS... send me a few thousand dollars.

Google is abso-fucking-lutely right to require a court order. If they don't, it'll just open the flood gates for other companies and people to "retract" damaging e-mails. The news here isn't that Google required proper legal procedures before violating it's users rights, it's that GS sends highly sensitive data by e-mail.

Re:Minor inconvenience (2)

plasm4 (533422) | about a month ago | (#47375747)

What's shocking is that google has locked the user out of their email account while this is happening.

Re:Minor inconvenience (4, Interesting)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a month ago | (#47375995)

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.

Delusional goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375667)

This is so delusional. From a technological point of view it is exactly has pathetic as when a judge mandates that some data is to be deleted from a database. Meanwhile there are already a huge number of copies (including DB backups, personal backups, browser history / cache, could backups [say your DB was replicated among x computer in the cloud and one harddisk gave warnings about it's lifetime expectancy and got replaced while still having the data, etc.) and the data is "out there".

It reminds me of the DeCSS fiasco.

Sadly as long as the juridical system will be disconnected from reality, such non-sense is going to keep happening. It can be summed as this: "We order you to destroy the knowledge allowing man to make fire".

Not gonna happen. Poor delusional fools.

Just to make a "statement" someone should put DeCSS inside the Bitcoin blockchain.

When will these fools learn? You cannot control leaked data. This is impossible. So you have two choices: don't leak or deal with it.

This is Google's fault...why, exactly? (1)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about a month ago | (#47375675)

That oughta larn 'em to check before they click send. But it probably won't.

Should have filed in Nevada (2)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a month ago | (#47375685)

...and used Microsoft's legal team. They would have gotten the gmail.com and google.com domains and then it would just have been a matter to use Microsoft name servers to commit a DoS attack against gmail's hackers, erm, users.

The Federal judges in Nevada are suckers for a good story, I hear, even if it's blatantly false.

How the fuck? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375701)

How the fuck did they reach anyone at Google to get that response?!

Re:How the fuck? (2)

Kardos (1348077) | about a month ago | (#47375797)

It's the "they have lots of money" effect that ensures their requests are read and acted upon, rather than automatically filtered out and discarded.

Re:How the fuck? (1)

u38cg (607297) | about a month ago | (#47375853)

They almost certainly have a contractual relationship with Google on other matters that would involve a human. From there it's a matter of a few phonecalls.

Re:How the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375867)

lawyers

Simple way (1)

emanuele_fanton (2529260) | about a month ago | (#47375705)

It isn't simpler to ask the destination address to delete it? As for security NSA already had a copy and so deleting it from google server is futile!!!

But what about the email footer???? (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about a month ago | (#47375723)

Aren't these legally binding? :-)

Re:But what about the email footer???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375859)

Even if those e-mail footers were binding, isn't it terribly stupid to put them at the end of the mail? I mean, if I stop reading before I get to the end, it won't apply to me anyway.

So can I (4, Insightful)

Kardos (1348077) | about a month ago | (#47375785)

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?

This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375789)

I always write the body of the email before filling out the "to" line.

For some reason, it's easy to hit ctrl+enter while I type and I have found no way to turn off this "auto-send" feature.

At least now when I accidentally hit this key combination it complains about missing a recipient.

Cannot unsend an email (2)

grahamm (8844) | about a month ago | (#47375813)

Someone should tell Goldman Sachs that you cannot unsend an email. Usenet articles can be cancelled, even though most servers ignore cancels, but like snail mail, once email is posted it cannot be recalled.

Cannot unsend an email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47376001)

Apparently it can. If you act fast enough, *and* get the necessary court order.

Recourse for the blocked email? (2)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about a month ago | (#47375819)

What I'm wondering is whether or not the person whose email account was blocked because they received an email from Goldman Sachs has any form of legal recourse against Goldman Sachs.

What's with the outrage? (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about a month ago | (#47375907)

They asked google to do something, google said they can't without a court order, and now they seem to be getting one.

Always wondered what happened to Oscar (1, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a month ago | (#47375909)

I always wondered what happened to Oscar Goldman after the Six Million Dollar Man wound down.

They DESERVE the reputational damage (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47375917)

Everyone makes mistakes. I understand that. I make mistakes too.

But here's what I don't get. I am sending an email to dude@gs.com and accidentally type dude@gmail.com. But I also I just happen to have dude@gmail.com's PGP key and a sufficient trust path to know the key is correct, for the confidential information in question? That's the part I simply don't believe. All of Goldman Sachs' protestations that the sender just happened to also know dude@gmail.com and that they key was verified, ring hollow.

Of course, the silliness here, is that Goldman Sachs isn't really saying that happened. I'm totally making up the bullshit about their "protestations." And that is the problem, because if the information is confidential and if this is important enough to go to court over (and maybe it really is), then their routine security practices are a joke and they should have a reputation for having complete disregard for protecting confidential information. They are telling the public that they can't be trusted. So, everyone: listen to them.

After 2008, Greek crisis etc what damage will this (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a month ago | (#47375999)

After 2008, Greek crisis etc what damage will this do to their reputation?

What law? (2)

countach (534280) | about a month ago | (#47376027)

My question is, what law gives a court the right to do such thing? While there may well be laws that compel companies to keep their own data private, I find it hard to believe there is a law that gives a court the right to undelete stuff in a scenario like this. Courts don't tend to do stuff no matter how reasonable unless there is some law that says they should.

The disturbing thing about this is that the real owner of that mail box, whoever he may be, doesn't get to show up in court and put forward his viewpoint.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>