3 ms·

You write: > Any reasonable person with knowledge of litigation knows that the only reason you attempt to hide things from discovery is that they are incrimina

by mcherm 10y ago

You write: > Any reasonable person with knowledge of litigation knows that the only reason you attempt to hide things from discovery is that they are incriminating, aggravating (in the legal sense) and/or damning. I disagree with that. As a general rule of thumb, "only people who have done something wrong would care about privacy" is a frequently used truism which is actually quite false. In this particular case, reasonable people with knowledge of litigation know that there are many, many reasons to hide things from discovery. The most common is because "the lawyers haven't reviewed this and so we don't know whether it would be problematic or not -- 99% chance it isn't a problem, but we shouldn't take any chances". This is the main reason (at least in the US) why companies have data destruction policies that require all emails and documents past a certain age be automatically deleted (unless an explicit step is taken to retain them).

peterbonney 10y ago
'"only people who have done something wrong would care about privacy" is a frequently used truism which is actually quite false.' I agree with this. Strongly. However, there are two important counterpoints here that don't apply in normal circumstances: 1. They were actively involved in litigation, which means normal information retention procedures were already out the window (or should have been). E.g. you can certainly do things like routinely delete business emails older than some specified age, but if you know those emails contain subject matter that is pertinent to active litigation you likely should not. 2. The encryption/destruction that occurred here weren't a "normal course of business" thing, but a response to the litigation. That gives a strong impression that it was willful and intended to evade laws and rules related to discovery.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  > I agree with this. Strongly. This is an ignorant statement. Things you say can easily be taken out of context and manipulated. This is a common occurrence, which is why privacy matters.
  - peterbonney 10y ago
    I was trying to say that I agree that privacy matters.

by mcherm 10y ago

peterbonney 10y ago

'"only people who have done something wrong would care about privacy" is a frequently used truism which is actually quite false.' I agree with this. Strongly. However, there are two important counterpoints here that don't apply in normal circumstances: 1. They were actively involved in litigation, which means normal information retention procedures were already out the window (or should have been). E.g. you can certainly do things like routinely delete business emails older than some specified age, but if you know those emails contain subject matter that is pertinent to active litigation you likely should not. 2. The encryption/destruction that occurred here weren't a "normal course of business" thing, but a response to the litigation. That gives a strong impression that it was willful and intended to evade laws and rules related to discovery.

pfarnsworth 10y ago
> I agree with this. Strongly. This is an ignorant statement. Things you say can easily be taken out of context and manipulated. This is a common occurrence, which is why privacy matters.
- peterbonney 10y ago
  I was trying to say that I agree that privacy matters.