Let's just hope they never merge with Facebook. (On the other hand there'd be huge taxpayer savings, since we could shut down the CIA as redundant.) #google
@hilikusopus: You're very welcome. I had to look pretty deep into my email archives for that one--glad I found it. Thanks for the encouragement. #google
Google doesn't quite know all. It certainly doesn't know about that one time with me and the showgirls and the stolen champagne in Asunción . . . Well, maybe it knows now. #google
@Unsolicited Advice: Heh, I was deciding what to blur while in Photoshop and that one only showed a serial number, so I blurred because, ya, who knows what freaky shit I've looked up on Google Shopping.
After I published, I clicked through, and turns out it was former Gawker Media editor Will Leitch's book. $81 fracking dollars, used!
I solve this problem with the Michael Scott smokescreen method -- half my emails are admissions of actual criminal behavior, half are outlandish, easily falsifiable lies. Foolproof!
I am the most knee-jerk liberal in the world, but I have no problem with what Google did in the Bear Stearns case. If you have something sensitive to say, don't do it in an e-mail. We've known that for years. What's amazing is that the most sophisticated and powerful people still seem to get caught by e-mail's ease of utility.
@depardoo: totally agree. It's evidence. Deleting an email account to hide evidence is like throwing a murder weapon in the ocean and assuming it's gone forever.
Sorry, you do the crime - and the authorities search for evidence - it shouldn't matter if they find that evidence via a CD-ROM that has to be asked for or a sonar that has to be conducted.
If Ryan Jenkins was emailing that he hated his wife, had bought a knife, and was going to kill her, would subpoena-ing Google for his old email account NOT be OK? Is it just that it was a financial crime? To me, crime is crime. You email, you know the ramifications.
@theartdodger: OK, I'll bite. If they are admissions of illegal activity - of COURSE they're going to be deleted! Again, it's like throwing out a murder weapon, or throwing out a license plate from a stolen car. I guess I don't understand why - when these are educated guys who know how things work - that they should be given protection from their own stupidity. They WROTE DOWN that they thought their fund was going to blow up. Damn straight that's evidence, and of course they'll try to hide it.
@FormerEnglishMajor: I worry about the ends justify the means attitude here. Is the idea that we should be able to access deleted email if and only if the emailer is a criminal? Kind of a hard call to make.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it worked out in this particular case. But I wouldn't trust the government to get it right every time, or even most of the time.
@Conchie Birdie: if you were an investor in that fund, or a person being harrassed by someone hiding behind a gmail account.... I'm not one for active Secret Police, but Google isn't doing that, they are reactive, not proactive, in giving information.
@FormerEnglishMajor: To clarify - My disdain is over the fact that Google has so much power and information at their fingertips. The way in which they use it seems like a more complicated matter concerning where the lines of privacy are drawn.
@Conchie Birdie: oh - sorry - got it. Google to me is like COnde Nast for others in publishing - doubt I'd work there, just nice to know it exists (in that "built in a garage and made a billion dollars" way).
@FormerEnglishMajor: I admire the whole "story" and reasoning behind Google, but the amount of power they hold with all of that information - holy crap.
A few former friends work there... seems a bit too 'cultish' for me.
So is there a legal recourse people have to have their historical emails deleted when they shut down the account? Or does Google just have blackmail rights over the entire world?
Treasury secretary Geithner almost lost his appointment because couldn't do his taxes. FBI chief almost falls for Internet fraud. It's like mom said: Do as I say, not as I do.
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
Whatever google doesn't know about me is either recorded by the guy in the silver hyundai with the really long lens, or I blurt out here. #google
11/05/09
11/05/09
After I published, I clicked through, and turns out it was former Gawker Media editor Will Leitch's book. $81 fracking dollars, used!
[www.google.com]
(I just realized, the more I talk, the more you'll assume it was a sex toy. CONFIRMED.) #google
11/05/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
Perhaps because you somehow sensed that, like my fellow Aurora, Illinois natives Wayne and Garth, I'm not worthy. #google
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
Sorry, you do the crime - and the authorities search for evidence - it shouldn't matter if they find that evidence via a CD-ROM that has to be asked for or a sonar that has to be conducted.
If Ryan Jenkins was emailing that he hated his wife, had bought a knife, and was going to kill her, would subpoena-ing Google for his old email account NOT be OK? Is it just that it was a financial crime? To me, crime is crime. You email, you know the ramifications.
10/09/09
If so, I would have a problem with that.
10/09/09
I
10/09/09
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it worked out in this particular case. But I wouldn't trust the government to get it right every time, or even most of the time.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
Wow, I apologize for that last sentence.
10/09/09
10/09/09
A few former friends work there... seems a bit too 'cultish' for me.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09