4 ms·

My question is what does deactivating the e-mail account accomplish? If I received that e-mail and I intended to sell it or use it for my own malicious purpose

My question is what does deactivating the e-mail account accomplish? If I received that e-mail and I intended to sell it or use it for my own malicious purposes, I would have saved the data off somewhere by now. Deactivating the e-mail account doesn't seem to accomplish anything.

pyre 17y ago
It prevents the user from selling off the data if this is an infrequently checked account (i.e. the user has not had a chance to even make the decision to sell the info). Not that I agree with the ruling.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  Then why didn't the court just authorize google to delete that particular attachment? It's on their servers after all. Google can also see whether the attatchment has been downloaded. There's absolutely no reason why the account should be suspened.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Because the judge is an idiot, and that's not what the bank's lawyers requested?
    - absconditus 17y ago
      Being technologically ignorant makes one an idiot?
      - alex_c 17y ago
        If one is making important technology decisions while being technologically ignorant - yes.
      - pyre 17y ago
        Maybe a 'real world' example is in order. If the bank accidentally mailed confidential information to a random person's PO Box, then sent a mail to that person's PO Box requesting that they return the package... it would be a similar scenario. The package was sent to the wrong place and the bank is obscured from knowing the identity of the real person behind that address. This judge's ruling is akin to allowing the bank to force the Postal Service to remove that person's PO Box account and burn all the mail inside of it in an attempt to destroy the confidential information. This is wrong on so many levels it's not funny. 1) The bank has no confirmation that the confidential information has has not been already removed from the PO Box. 2) The bank is destroying all of that person's other mail and preventing future mail from reaching that person in an attempt to correct their mistake (which is only related to a single piece of mail). If the judge wanted to allow them access to the PO Box to remove the mail, then so be it. The current ruling makes no sense. As alex_c said, someone making important decisions about a matter (technology or otherwise) CANNOT use ignorance as an excuse. Some person that's never used a computer can be as technologically ignorant as they like, but someone that holds a position of responsibility is a different issue.
        mdasen 17y ago
        Hopefully "deactivate" simply means preventing the owner of the account from logging in. It is possible to deactivate an email account while storing incoming email and preserving the contents of that person's account - just in a way inaccessible to them. That way, it could simply be temporary - especially if appealed. It's an absolutely terrible decision, but I think (hope?) it will be more akin to them changing the lock on your PO Box and not allowing you to access its contents until the situation is cleared up. Clearly not an acceptable decision, but it's better than permanently losing everything and can be appealed by the account's holder. Plus, if the deactivation was a destruction of the person's data, that would put the bank at huge liability I would have to think. People have important emails and I don't think any jury would side with the bank. Imagine presenting that case to a jury. "The bank screwed up and to cover their ass, they destroyed all my email - all my personal and professional communications; important documents. . ."
        gradschool 17y ago
        Google isn't the postal service and has no contractual obligations to its email users. The judge might well think anyone who allows his livelihood to depend on a freebie that Google can withdraw any time it wants is an 'idiot'. Who could blame him?

pyre 17y ago

It prevents the user from selling off the data if this is an infrequently checked account (i.e. the user has not had a chance to even make the decision to sell the info). Not that I agree with the ruling.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
Then why didn't the court just authorize google to delete that particular attachment? It's on their servers after all. Google can also see whether the attatchment has been downloaded. There's absolutely no reason why the account should be suspened.
- pyre 17y ago
  Because the judge is an idiot, and that's not what the bank's lawyers requested?
  - absconditus 17y ago
    Being technologically ignorant makes one an idiot?
    - alex_c 17y ago
      If one is making important technology decisions while being technologically ignorant - yes.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Maybe a 'real world' example is in order. If the bank accidentally mailed confidential information to a random person's PO Box, then sent a mail to that person's PO Box requesting that they return the package... it would be a similar scenario. The package was sent to the wrong place and the bank is obscured from knowing the identity of the real person behind that address. This judge's ruling is akin to allowing the bank to force the Postal Service to remove that person's PO Box account and burn all the mail inside of it in an attempt to destroy the confidential information. This is wrong on so many levels it's not funny. 1) The bank has no confirmation that the confidential information has has not been already removed from the PO Box. 2) The bank is destroying all of that person's other mail and preventing future mail from reaching that person in an attempt to correct their mistake (which is only related to a single piece of mail). If the judge wanted to allow them access to the PO Box to remove the mail, then so be it. The current ruling makes no sense. As alex_c said, someone making important decisions about a matter (technology or otherwise) CANNOT use ignorance as an excuse. Some person that's never used a computer can be as technologically ignorant as they like, but someone that holds a position of responsibility is a different issue.
      - mdasen 17y ago
        Hopefully "deactivate" simply means preventing the owner of the account from logging in. It is possible to deactivate an email account while storing incoming email and preserving the contents of that person's account - just in a way inaccessible to them. That way, it could simply be temporary - especially if appealed. It's an absolutely terrible decision, but I think (hope?) it will be more akin to them changing the lock on your PO Box and not allowing you to access its contents until the situation is cleared up. Clearly not an acceptable decision, but it's better than permanently losing everything and can be appealed by the account's holder. Plus, if the deactivation was a destruction of the person's data, that would put the bank at huge liability I would have to think. People have important emails and I don't think any jury would side with the bank. Imagine presenting that case to a jury. "The bank screwed up and to cover their ass, they destroyed all my email - all my personal and professional communications; important documents. . ."
      - gradschool 17y ago
        Google isn't the postal service and has no contractual obligations to its email users. The judge might well think anyone who allows his livelihood to depend on a freebie that Google can withdraw any time it wants is an 'idiot'. Who could blame him?