Reasoning for de-activing the account: gmail account holder has not replied to follow up emails from the bank to destroy email and sensitive content. Therefore it is possible that the account is dormant and/or infrequently used. If that is the case, deactivation insures that the sensitive data is protected if the user happens to at this late date access their gmail account and lo and behold, surprise email from idiot bank. (This also applies if sensitive data is in the spam folder.)
Reasoning for disclosing identity: gmail account is active and frequently accessed, but the user (for whatever reason) has decided not to respond to the idiot bank. This raises the possibility that s/he has malicious intent of misusing the idiot bank's customers' information. Therefore lets find out who this person is in case the idiot bank's customers' information happens to show up elsewhere on the internet.
If I were the owner of the gmail account in question, and I were planning to sell or otherwise misuse the bank's customers' information, I would certainly reply to the bank and claim to have deleted the file. In fact, I would actually delete the email, but I'd have already transferred the data to some very heavily encrypted storage elsewhere(deniable encryption, of course).
Dude the guy/gal does not have to respond to any email unless he wants to. This is not a conversation. It was a request to communicate, and s/he can decide to remain silent.
> Dude the guy/gal does not have to respond to any email unless he wants to.
Obviously. (There is nothing in the earlier comment that in any way addresses the recipient's rights.)
Equally obvious is the fact that the bank in question certainly has to take every possible measure to limit the impact of their stupid mistake. Its possible (ianal) that they even have a legal obligation to do so.
Comments
There is a mad logic to it:
Reasoning for de-activing the account: gmail account holder has not replied to follow up emails from the bank to destroy email and sensitive content. Therefore it is possible that the account is dormant and/or infrequently used. If that is the case, deactivation insures that the sensitive data is protected if the user happens to at this late date access their gmail account and lo and behold, surprise email from idiot bank. (This also applies if sensitive data is in the spam folder.)
Reasoning for disclosing identity: gmail account is active and frequently accessed, but the user (for whatever reason) has decided not to respond to the idiot bank. This raises the possibility that s/he has malicious intent of misusing the idiot bank's customers' information. Therefore lets find out who this person is in case the idiot bank's customers' information happens to show up elsewhere on the internet.
If I were the owner of the gmail account in question, and I were planning to sell or otherwise misuse the bank's customers' information, I would certainly reply to the bank and claim to have deleted the file. In fact, I would actually delete the email, but I'd have already transferred the data to some very heavily encrypted storage elsewhere(deniable encryption, of course).
Dude the guy/gal does not have to respond to any email unless he wants to. This is not a conversation. It was a request to communicate, and s/he can decide to remain silent.
> Dude the guy/gal does not have to respond to any email unless he wants to.
Obviously. (There is nothing in the earlier comment that in any way addresses the recipient's rights.)
Equally obvious is the fact that the bank in question certainly has to take every possible measure to limit the impact of their stupid mistake. Its possible (ianal) that they even have a legal obligation to do so.