4 ms·

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

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
The only other way that a person can get email on the internet is through a hosting/colo/vps service. Hosting services are notoriously quick to just turn over information at the sign of any trouble. If this user's email was hosted on a hosting service that he/she had paid for, chances are that his/her information would have been handed over to the bank as soon as the words 'lawyer' and/or 'court' were mentioned. It's funny then that Google -- with their free service -- has shown more compassion for this user's privacy rights than a paid service would have. (Note that I realize this 'compassion' is out of need to protect a brand, yadda yadda yadda) And in any case, since Google has no 'contractual obligations' to its email users, do you think that it would be right and proper for the judge to order Google to shut down all free gmail addresses in the hopes that it would prevent problems for this bank? Afterall, it's a free service right? All of those users are idiots, right?