4 ms·

Thank you for this detailed summary. My point wasn't that Google doesn't have data; my point is that they want to use it as evidence.. but said evidence has be

• Judgmentality 10y ago
  > My point wasn't that Google doesn't have data; my point is that they want to use it as evidence.. but said evidence has been created by themselves! That's like saying the police created their own evidence by performing an investigation.
  • joering2 10y ago
    No it is not. Google != police.
• kbenson 10y ago
  Well, what's to differentiate that argument from being used against video evidence of a robbery? It's up to the defense to get the evidence deemed inadmissible to discredit it in court if there's any indication that it may not be legit. I imagine logs by themselves might not sway some people, but logs combined with whatever is found in a discovery process from Uber along with the fact that a parts supplier of Waymo happened to be making the exact same part for Otto (either because the secret part was requested or because they were provided the exact same design docs), doesn't make it look very good for Otto/Uber (if that allegation is correct).
• defen 10y ago
  There's really zero incentive for line-level engineers & security folks at Google to engage in conspiracy to defraud the court. The penalties that the involved individuals could potentially suffer would be far worse than whatever distant benefit they get from Google winning the case (and it only takes one defector to ruin your plan). It's not logically impossible for such a thing to happen, but I would consider sworn testimony from multiple Google employees "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the purported access did happen.