TODAY, what really connects the financial world? Money, intellect and ideology are candidates. But the best answer may be: the Bloomberg terminal. More than 315,000 of these data cockpits (see picture) are in use around the world, leased for $20,000 a year. To locate a shared terminal in an office one merely needs to follow the deepest footpath in the carpeting. "Smart money" cannot live without the Bloomberg's wealth of statistical information, analytical software and communication links. It provides a window on the world's financial flows. Imagine the horror, then, when users of the terminal discovered that it also provided Bloomberg's reporters with a window on them. Until the practice was stopped recently, those reporters could see when users had been logged on, and more. The trouble emerged when a Bloomberg reporter in Hong Kong remarked to a contact at Goldman Sachs that one of the investment bank's partners had not logged on to the system in some time - and might have departed. The bank quickly realised what the inquiry suggested and complained to Bloomberg. Discussions ensued and on May 9th Goldman issued a bland statement saying that it was assured that Bloomberg was "taking immediate measures to address the problem." As more of Bloomberg's clients expressed concerns, Matthew Winkler, its editor, issued an apology. The roots of the issue, he wrote on May 13th, date back to the early days of the new service in the 1990s, when reporters used the system to understand what topics clients wanted to be covered. This has now ended, Mr Winkler insisted, adding that accessing proprietary client data was "inexcusable." The login data reporters had access to evidently also gave clues about who might be out of a job - valuable information in the gossipy world of investment. Compensation at Bloomberg can be tied to such scoops. It is not entirely clear what other kinds of information reporters were able to access. Beyond simple login data, notes Mr Winkler, they could see usage of "high-level" functions - akin to seeing how many times someone "used Microsoft Word vs. Excel." But the Bloomberg terminal has a vast number of functions and the company does not disclose how many of these reporters could track. Reporters could see potentially useful information about help-desk inquiries. Being aware of a firm's sudden interest in a certain type of security or news could at the very least be a good steer for an informed journalist. Bloomberg (which is a competitor of The Economist Group in several areas) emphatically denied that reporters had access to e-mails, trading data or information on precisely what stories were being read and by whom. Unhappily, these reassurances came just as it emerged that, because of an apparent error, thousands of confidential messages and trading records had ended up on the internet. The firm said that as of May 13th only 30 clients had raised complaints. Some, though, carry a punch. The Bank of England called Bloomberg's conduct "reprehensible" and JPMorgan's lawyers have sent a letter demanding to know what information was available, and what was sought, dating back to 2008. But it is unlikely that much business will be pulled: the Bloomberg terminal is too valuable.