2 ms·
Your comments strongly advocated for the "limits" being that no company could ever be compelled to compile or produce information for an audit at its own expens
by ubernostrum 9y ago
Your comments strongly advocated for the "limits" being that no company could ever be compelled to compile or produce information for an audit at its own expense. Have you now recognized the error in your earlier position, since you seem to be trying to walk it back?
- mythrwy 9y agoI've tried to figure out how I can walk back on something nowhere near what I stated in the first place but haven't come up with a solution yet. So until I do I'll have to answer "no" to your question.
- ubernostrum 9y agoGovernment shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case. Direct quote of you. This is exactly what the government is allowed to do. This is exactly how an audit works when they think they've found something. The government needs the information to determine whether the company is in compliance. The company has the information. How else would you solve this, besides the government having the power to compel production of the information?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mythrwy 9y agoSo, your second statement isn't what I originally stated at all. This isn't how an "audit" works at all, an "audit" and an accusation are two different things entirely. Your bias has apparently led you into reading things that aren't there. A common fallacy so don't feel bad. "The government needs information" I'm not sure it really does to this extent, but assuming you are right, how much legal responsibility does Google have to provide it? And this is exactly what we are going to find out from the courts. Back to the original point, the attorneys for Google have no duty, and in fact, every duty, to minimize the amount of information provided.