5 ms·

It's not common when you're an engineer involved in an IP lawsuit. Getting notified of this type of lawsuit also means getting a data retention notice requiring

by mwfunk 10y ago

It's not common when you're an engineer involved in an IP lawsuit. Getting notified of this type of lawsuit also means getting a data retention notice requiring you to not do this. All sorts of special requirements come into play, and not complying with them is an immediate and huge red flag. Even if it was innocent, it looks incredibly fishy. If he did securely wipe a volume on the drive of a machine he worked on after being notified of the suit, there are literally only four explanations, all of which can be attributed to malice or ignorance: (1) Malice: he intentionally destroyed evidence. This would be on him. (2) Ignorance: he was given a retention notice by Facebook's lawyers, but didn't understand it and innocently blew away the volume. This would be on him. (3) Ignorance: Facebook's lawyers didn't immediately give him a retention notice when the suit started. This would be on Facebook's lawyers. (4) Ignorance: Facebook assigned the most incompetent IP lawyers imaginable to defend Carmack, and it never occurred to them to issue a retention notice. This would be on Facebook. This all only applies if Carmack actually did securely reformat a volume on a work machine that was relevant to this case, after being informed of this lawsuit. If that's not true, then there are other possible explanations, and this could in fact be a misrepresentation by ZeniMax.

Retric 10y ago
You are ignoring the vastly more likely 5) he wiped a test machine that lacked relevant information or 6) he wiped a new machine that had no data from him or his company. If you break something, starting over and not doing the same thing is often a vastly better than trying to debug what happened and then fixing it.
- harryh 10y ago
  The subject of a data retention order isn't the person that gets to decide what data is or is not relevant.
  - Retric 10y ago
    That's not actually true, cache files for example are wiped as a basic fact of web browsing. Unless specified, continuing to brows the web on an unrelated machine is not in violation. Note, demonstrating something is unrelated is easiest when it was purchased after the fact. PS: And yes, I have had training and been required to deal with data retention issues as a basic part of my job for years.
    - harryh 10y ago
      "he wiped a test machine that lacked relevant information" != "cache files for example are wiped as a basic fact of web browsing"
      - Retric 10y ago
        Depends, CI servers are sometimes setup to do a fresh OS install on a regular basis. Formatting a machine that was formatted last night and will be formatted tomarrow is hardly suspicious behavior. Now that's unusual for web servers, but client software that gets installed is it's own little world. VM's snapshots are generally better for this, but 3D software can have issues with VM's.
- EpicEng 10y ago
  Well tough shit. You don't get to decide what's relevant once you're served. He's not a dumb guy. If he was aware of the notice then his actions are 100% suspicious.
  - Retric 10y ago
    That's not actually how things operate. Now, it is best to set aside a relevant machine or HDD etc. But, for example if you buy a new phone and then brows the web on it, then as a basic fact of browsing the web cache files get deleted. So, if you get such an order. Box up your current machine. Buy a new one, wipe it clean, reinstall from version control that's in no way suspicious. Assuming such things where documented and normal procedure. PS: I would add, the court of public option may ignore such things. But, the court of law is actually far from stupid.
    - EpicEng 10y ago
      If he had done either of those two things I found this anyone would have found it suspicious. Of course, he didn't, so what's your point?
candiodari 10y ago
About (4) ... Facebook is a big company. Here's what may happen in real life. High up person X, gets that notice and takes it to his boss, and they talk about it. They agree to ignore it and just let the lawyers deal with it. 10 minutes later a lawyer assistant storms in, demands an immediate meeting with the accused and tells gives them a list of 10 things, including data retention, to immediately do. They get started on item 1 on the list, then tell some junior team member to do the remaining 9, and get back to work. Two days later, lawyer finds out the net result of all this is that several computers in use and under discovery are lost. Several others were used in a manner totally ignoring the order, along with an angry high up VP complaining that complying with this order "effectively shut down the department" (read: inconvenienced a few people involved in the lawsuit). An employee that's due to be interviewed in preparation for testimony in 15 days just took a 14 day leave, another that's on the list of experts left under bad circumstances. And of course, all of this is the fault of the legal department. Lawyer spends the next 30 minutes under his desk fighting the urge to buy a gun. Mind if I give people a bit of advice: whilst deleting stuff once it's under discovery is of course very bad practice (it is not simply illegal though, the situation is more complex), limiting the amount of time you hold on to files, mails, chat logs, browser history, ... is a good thing. I would advise no more than 2-3 months unless there's a specific reason. If you're part of a big company, do this especially for your work related files. Oh and of course, whatever mechanism you put in place to do this, needs to be deactivated once you do have a discovery order and reactivated afterwards.

by mwfunk 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

You are ignoring the vastly more likely 5) he wiped a test machine that lacked relevant information or 6) he wiped a new machine that had no data from him or his company. If you break something, starting over and not doing the same thing is often a vastly better than trying to debug what happened and then fixing it.

harryh 10y ago
The subject of a data retention order isn't the person that gets to decide what data is or is not relevant.
- Retric 10y ago
  That's not actually true, cache files for example are wiped as a basic fact of web browsing. Unless specified, continuing to brows the web on an unrelated machine is not in violation. Note, demonstrating something is unrelated is easiest when it was purchased after the fact. PS: And yes, I have had training and been required to deal with data retention issues as a basic part of my job for years.
  - harryh 10y ago
    "he wiped a test machine that lacked relevant information" != "cache files for example are wiped as a basic fact of web browsing"
    - Retric 10y ago
      Depends, CI servers are sometimes setup to do a fresh OS install on a regular basis. Formatting a machine that was formatted last night and will be formatted tomarrow is hardly suspicious behavior. Now that's unusual for web servers, but client software that gets installed is it's own little world. VM's snapshots are generally better for this, but 3D software can have issues with VM's.
EpicEng 10y ago
Well tough shit. You don't get to decide what's relevant once you're served. He's not a dumb guy. If he was aware of the notice then his actions are 100% suspicious.
- Retric 10y ago
  That's not actually how things operate. Now, it is best to set aside a relevant machine or HDD etc. But, for example if you buy a new phone and then brows the web on it, then as a basic fact of browsing the web cache files get deleted. So, if you get such an order. Box up your current machine. Buy a new one, wipe it clean, reinstall from version control that's in no way suspicious. Assuming such things where documented and normal procedure. PS: I would add, the court of public option may ignore such things. But, the court of law is actually far from stupid.
  - EpicEng 10y ago
    If he had done either of those two things I found this anyone would have found it suspicious. Of course, he didn't, so what's your point?

candiodari 10y ago

About (4) ... Facebook is a big company. Here's what may happen in real life. High up person X, gets that notice and takes it to his boss, and they talk about it. They agree to ignore it and just let the lawyers deal with it. 10 minutes later a lawyer assistant storms in, demands an immediate meeting with the accused and tells gives them a list of 10 things, including data retention, to immediately do. They get started on item 1 on the list, then tell some junior team member to do the remaining 9, and get back to work. Two days later, lawyer finds out the net result of all this is that several computers in use and under discovery are lost. Several others were used in a manner totally ignoring the order, along with an angry high up VP complaining that complying with this order "effectively shut down the department" (read: inconvenienced a few people involved in the lawsuit). An employee that's due to be interviewed in preparation for testimony in 15 days just took a 14 day leave, another that's on the list of experts left under bad circumstances. And of course, all of this is the fault of the legal department. Lawyer spends the next 30 minutes under his desk fighting the urge to buy a gun. Mind if I give people a bit of advice: whilst deleting stuff once it's under discovery is of course very bad practice (it is not simply illegal though, the situation is more complex), limiting the amount of time you hold on to files, mails, chat logs, browser history, ... is a good thing. I would advise no more than 2-3 months unless there's a specific reason. If you're part of a big company, do this especially for your work related files. Oh and of course, whatever mechanism you put in place to do this, needs to be deactivated once you do have a discovery order and reactivated afterwards.