Death By Email Blog

Google Wave Comes To Shore

The web is buzzing with Google's announcement that it is sending out 100,000 invitations to Google Wave today.  Back in June, my blog entry Catch The Google Wave said:

"Google Wave is poised to revolutionize email. I am not only impressed by what I saw on the rather long video from the Google I/O conference, but I know it is important because my daughter, Gabrielle, told me so."

My daughters and I have decided to start a blog together, entitled Blogging The Wave.  It was Gabrielle's idea.  We will take a multi-generational approach to looking at Google Wave and what it can do for you.  This is meant to be personal, hands-on and way beyond the official Google blog.

Bank Sends Email To Wrong Address -- Sues Google

Data privacy laws have expanded across the country, with the strongest one due to take effect in Massachusetts in January -- MA 201 CMR 17.  The laws are designed to protect us from mistakes like the one that just went to court for other reasons.

An employee of Rocky Mountain Bank, a small bank in Wilson, Wyoming, accidentally sent an email with confidential information on 1325 individual and business customers that included their names, addresses, tax identification or social security numbers and loan information.  When he realized his mistake and the privacy violation, he tried to recall the message.  But, he was not successful. 

The bank then sent an email to the accidental recipient asking him to destroy the message.  He also asked the person to contact the bank “discuss his or her actions.” No response.

The bank then followed the next logical step and contacted Google because the recipient had a Gmail address.  The bank "asked whether the Gmail account at issue is active or dormant and what steps could be taken to ensure that the confidential customer information was not used or disclosed," stated court documents.

Google refused, the court document stated.  Google said that it would not provide any information regarding the Gmail account at issue, and would not otherwise assist in preventing disclosure of the confidential customer information unless it was requested through a valid subpoena or other appropriate legal process.

I understand why the bank wanted the information at the time.  I am thinking that they wanted to find out what happened to their data before warning customers of the breach.  OK ... they probably should have notified customers right away.

And, I understand Google's privacy policy.  But, I am shocked that Google did not offer to contact the recipient on the bank's behalf without revealing private data, given the magnitude of the risk.  It seems that Google will protect their own privacy policy, but will not help others when a privacy issues comes up.

Well, since Google demanded a court order, the bank went to court for the information and the case is now in front of federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose, California.

"The bank then filed papers asking a court to order Google to disclose the information. And, in what proved to be yet another mistake, the bank tried to file those papers under seal," reported the Daily Examiner.

"An attempt by a bank to shield information about an unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information until it can determine whether or not that information has been further disclosed and/or misused does not constitute a compelling reason that overrides the public's common law right of access to court filings," Whyte wrote. (Daily Examiner)

Clearly, privacy laws need to be clarified to protect us.  I also think that Google could be more helpful.

EU Fines Intel More Than A Billion and Cites Emails

Intel appears to have been caught by emails that the European Commission on Monday published yesterday.  The EC says that emails and documents demonstrate chip maker Intel and major computer companies, including Lenovo, NEC, Hewlett-Packard, and retailer Media Saturn Holding, had a plan to shut competitor AMD out of the European market.  The details included data on rebates that were linked to tight restrictions on the amount of chips that could be purchased from AMD.

The competition watchdog yesterday imposed a $1.6-billion fine on Intel for breaching EU antitrust rules, the largest single penalty imposed on any company for competition breaches in the EU. (Financial Times)

Here are some emails the EC cited:

LENOVO

"[Two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (…). […] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (…) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (…) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD", said in a June 2006 email.  (Tech Generation Daily)

DELL

In a February 2004 email on the consequences of the possible purchase by Dell of AMD CPUs, a Dell executive wrote: "Boss, here's an outline of the framework we discussed with Intel. (…) Intel is ready to send [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel executive] /[Intel executive] to meet with [Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Executive] . (...) Background: [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel Senior executive] are prepared for [all-out war] 1 if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP [name of Intel rebate to Dell] for at least one quarter while Intel 'investigates the details' (...) We'll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50 percent, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Dell product series for corporate customers], they cut it to <20 percent and use the added MCP to compete against us. "  (TGD)

HP

"Intel granted the credits subject to the following unwritten requirements: a) that HP should purchase at least 95 percent of its business desktop system from Intel …".

"PLEASE DO NOT… communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to five percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement".

NEC

"NEC will (...) increase [worldwide] Intel market share from [...]  percent to 80 percent. Intel will give NEC [support] and aggressive [...] price.".

For its part, Intel denies any wrong doing.  (Monsters and Critics)

Intel claims "the commission relied heavily on speculation found in emails from lower-level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements if they favored the commission's case".  (Financial Times)

It also maintains: "At the same time, they [Commission officials] ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations, and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue". (FT)

In any case, it does show that damaging emails can be contained in the email archives of other companies, even if you deleted all your emails.

Destroying Evidence in Your Personal Email Account -- Maybe

If you cancel your personal email account, and the vendor deletes your emails according to policy, could you be accused of destroying evidence? 

Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, former hedge-fund managers of  Bear Stearns, are accused of believing in March 2007 that their funds were ready to collapse, but, during an investor call, acted as if everything was well.  If they intentionally misrepresented their beliefs, then there could be a basis for legal action.  But, if they really believed what they said in public, then their only mistake was not correctly predicting the future.

How can you tell intent?  Perhaps a read through email records would help ....

The prosecutors found a message of interest that Tannin supposedly sent to Cioffi via Cioffi's wife's personal e-mail address on April 22, 2007, saying that "the subprime market looks pretty damn ugly," which could eventually mean "there is simply no way for us to make money—ever."  (Slate.com)

But, they could not find anything in Tannin's Gmail account.  Why?  Because it was all deleted.

"We are no longer able to extract the information requested in the search warrant," a letter from Google said (Wall Street Journal).  Prosecutors said the account was erased "during the pendency of the criminal investigation"

Defense lawyers called it "eleventh-hour smear."  The Wall Street Journal reported:

Susan Brune, a lawyer for Tannin, said a user no longer has access to a Gmail account after it is closed. Google may maintain copies of the contents of the closed accounts for up to 60 days on its active server and for unspecified periods on its backup servers, said Brune, citing Google policy.(WSJ)

"There is no requirement in law or in common sense that dictates that a person under a subpoena must keep his personal email account at a third-party email provider open in perpetuity," Ms. Brune said in her letter. "That Google has apparently stopped maintaining the emails that were available on its server for a lengthy period of time after the collapse of the funds is not evidence of any impropriety and is simply not relevant to any issue in trial."

Readers of this blog know that email archiving is critical for businesses.  But, this is the first time that I know about in which an individual could be responsible for maintaining his personal email for a work related issue.  Let's keep watching this one.

Can I Wait For A New Smart Phone?

It is getting close to time to replace my wireless email BlackBerry.  I have heard about so many great new devices coming soon that I am torn about when to get one.

Assuming that I do not go for an iPhone -- yes, it is great but I cannot move off of Verizon -- what should I do?  Do I get the new HTC Touch Pro 2, which is sitting at the store?  Or do I wait for a nice shiny Android device with the promise of Google-love?  Perhaps the long anticipated BlackBerry Storm 2?

Do I act or do I wait?  This video clearly outlines the experience that I am going through .....

(Thanks to crackberry.com)

Spam That Plays on Your Ego

"Earlier this year, I sent a notification email to you recognizing that Inboxer Inc had been selected for the 2009 Best of Concord Award in the Computer Integrated Systems Design category," began the email that I received this morning.  It further said that, "Each year, the US Commerce Association (USCA) identifies companies that we believe have achieved exceptional marketing success."

Sounds good.  It is exciting to win recognition from an organization that sounds so much like the Commerce Department.  And that is what they want you to believe.

A quick Google search found an article from the Better Business Bureau:

"Recent emails notifying businesses that they have won prestigious awards from a national association appear to be part of a widespread scheme designed to get companies to pay for “vanity” awards and plaques."

It is clever spam because it does not look like spam to your spam filter.  It mentions your business, the town that you are in, and a little about your line of business.  It even got past the InBoxer Anti-Spam Filter, which is rare.  It is also clever because it passes the human "smell test" for spam.  The message appeals to your vanity, sounds legitimate, and does not ask you to spend too much.  But, it seems to always make sense to do a quick Google search on any company before responding to their offer.

Will Deleted Emails Be a Bombshell in the Boston Mayoral Race?

Several candidates running to unseat Boston Mayor Tom Menino are calling for a criminal investigation into reported violations of public records laws due to deleted emails, said New England Cable News.  The claims include that the deleted emails represent a "culture of dishonesty" and a "deliberate scrubbing of messages."  Boston city officials state that the email deletions were unintentional.

With so many email archiving companies based in eastern Massachusetts (including InBoxer), you would hope that our local governments would be careful to maintain detailed email archives.  But, that does not seem to be the case for our neighbors in Boston.

"City employees were routinely deleting emails, a potential violation of the state public records law," stated the Boston Sunday Globe.  According to reports, some city officials deleted their emails every day and purged their deleted items folder.  If the deletions were completed before the end of the day, the messages did not appear in the long-term archive, the reports indicated.

The allegations began after the Boston Sunday Globe reported that it filed several requests for emails sent and received by Michael J. Kineavy, Mayor Thomas Menino’s Cabinet chief of policy and planning, a senior, influential role.   But a search of city computers found just 18 emails he had sent or received between Oct. 1, 2008, and March 31 of this year.  The Globe also reported on other deleted emails from other city officials.

"Kineavy, who is also one of the mayor’s chief political advisers and a strategist on Menino’s reelection campaigns since 1993, told them that he deletes all his emails on a daily basis, in such a way that they are not saved on city backup computers, administration officials said," according to the Globe.

"The improper deletion of email is a violation of the public records law. Period,’’ said Secretary of State William F. Galvin.  The Globe said that the state public records law requires municipal employees to save electronic correspondence for at least two years, even if the contents are of “no informational or evidential value.’’ The only emails that can be deleted are those containing completely inconsequential information, such as spam or questions about lunch orders.

The timing could not be worse for the Menino administration as the mayoral election is right around the corner.  The Globe further reports:

City councilors Michael Flaherty and Sam Yoon, both candidates in the upcoming mayoral preliminary election, said they would ask Attorney General Martha Coakley and Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley to investigate the deletion of emails by officials in Menino’s administration.

Flaherty, in a statement, said the practice smacked of a “culture of dishonesty’’ in the Menino administration,’’ while Yoon issued a similar statement characterizing the controversy as “case in point’’ for term limits and greater checks on the power of the mayor of Boston.

Dear City of Boston:  My office is located about 20 minutes from City Hall.  Our company would be happy to help you have an effective email archive.

Email Points To Bribery in Environmental Case

Chevron Corporation released to the public a set of emails and videos related to a $3 million bribe scheme associated with an environmental lawsuit against the company in Ecuador.  (Full text)  In the latest in our series entitled "Caught By Email", we see that key individuals did not expect their emails to be released:

"In the correspondence, reviewed by Dow Jones Newswires, an alleged party official provides one of the businessmen, former local Chevron contractor Diego Borja, with a bank account number in a Galveston, Texas, bank. The email dates from late June, shortly after the businessmen recorded a meeting with a man who Chevron says is named Carlos Patricio Garcia, an official with Ecuador's ruling party Alianza PAIS. In that meeting, Garcia asked for a $3 million bribe, according to videos released by Chevron last week,"  reported today's Wall Street Journal.

Chevron's comment: The environmental case pending against Chevron in Ecuador has devolved into a runaway judicial farce, orchestrated by a community of interest made up of U.S.-based contingency-fee lawyers seeking a financial bonanza and the government of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, which seeks both a financial and political windfall.

DON'T WRITE EMAILS WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!!!

If you run around your office and yell at your colleagues, could you be considered a disruptive influence?  Would that be cause for termination or disciplinary action?  Do you need to have a manual that explains that yelling in the office is a bad idea?

In turn, what would happen if you happened to document your yelling in emails using capital letters, bolding, and color?  Do you think that any email user would know that writing this type of email might cause some recipients to become upset?  Do we need a manual that explains that writing emails like this is a bad idea.

In New Zealand, the answer appears to be yes -- we need a manual.

The New Zealand Employment Relations Authority ruled that Vicki Walker was not fairly terminated from her position after sending emails like the one on the top left to co-workers.  Colleagues complained that her emails were too "shouty" and confrontational. She behaved "provocatively" by highlighting key phrases in bold or red, her employer ProCare Health claimed. (Telegraph)

However, Authority member Alastair Dumbleton noted that her employer, ProCare Health did not have a style or etiquette guide for employees using email, so it was not clear what was regarded as unacceptable communication. (Source: Auckland Herald)  He agreed that Walker had contributed to disharmony in the workplace, but he said Ms Walker received no warnings.

Walker was awarded nearly NZ$ 6000 in lost wages for and NZ$ 11,500 for any harm caused through her dismissal.

OK.  Perhaps Walker did not understand the rules of email etiquette.  It might be handy if Emily Post had written such a guide.  And, I do think it would have been useful for management to explain to Walker that emails were causing problems.  But, do we really need to define what is unacceptable communications in the workplace in this day and age?

Clarksville, TN Mayor Sends Anti-Islamic Email

  Clarksville, Tennessee Mayor, John Piper sent an amazing anti-Islam email to public officials including every City Council member, every department head, and numerous other city employees, friends and family members.  The email urges "patriotic Americans" to protest a U.S. Postal Service stamp commemorating two Islamic holidays.

According to the U.S. Postal Service, the stamp in question commemorates the two most important festivals—or eids—in the Islamic calendar: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. On these days, Muslims wish each other “Eid mubarak,” the phrase featured in Islamic calligraphy on the stamp. “Eid mubarak” translates literally as “blessed festival,” and can be paraphrased as “May your religious holiday be blessed.” This phrase can be applied to both Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. (Clarksville Online)

This stamp was first issued in 2001 with a 34–cent denomination, and with the same design, a 37–cent denomination in 2002, 39–cent denomination in 2006, 41–cent denomination in 2007, and 42–cent denomination in 2008.

But. the mayor says: "REMEMBER to adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp, when you are purchasing your stamps at the post office. All you have to say is, No thank you, I don't want that Muslim stamp on my letters. To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors."  (Full text of the email.)

"I don't see any reason why it would be inappropriate," Mayor Piper said in The Leaf Chronicle. "I read it and thought about the bombings of our buildings, of our national buildings," Piper said. "In my mind, it presented an image of mass death at the hands of Muslims."

He added later, "I don't believe, just for the record, that all Muslims are linked together with radical Muslims that are out to harm Americans ... I have several good Muslim friends."

I am all in favor of free speech.  And, when you make personal statements on your own time with your own email account, you should be free to say anything that you want -- no matter how offensive. 

But, if you are using city computers, on city time, to city email addresses, can offensive statements constitute misuse of city computing resources?

Probably, the only recourse will be by the voters in the ballot box.  I just hope that the next election is really soon.