4 ms·
Edit: For people bringing up Sarbanes-Oxley, I will paste a comment made by a user in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15827298 https://news.yc
by kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
Edit: For people bringing up Sarbanes-Oxley, I will paste a comment made by a user in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15827298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15827298)
> "This is not even a little bit true. What you're implying is that businesses are required by law to keep all internal communications in case someday there's litigation, and that is just flatly false.
Deleting data once litigation has been initiated is tampering/obstruction. Deleting data when not under litigation is the company's choice, with very few exceptions. Many companies explicitly require all communication be ephemeral - email, messaging, etc. it explicitly only preserved for X days and then deleted entirely from all systems."
"That they were so concerned about covering things up meant that they could have known what they were doing was a crime"
When the government says "Only criminals want privacy. Why do you care about privacy if you're doing nothing wrong", every one is up in arms (and rightly). What happened now?
"However, companies have an obligation to preserve records that may be reasonably seen as relevant to litigation. Chat logs that could help get to the bottom of the trade secrets case are now inaccessible"
Why does someone automatically have a right to know what communication took place just because that knowledge would help incriminate the communicator?
There seems to be a double standard in the community here when it comes to privacy. Usually, everyone's all gung-ho about privacy and encrypted communication and VPNs that don't keep logs. At that time, no one seems to be concerned about who is using that encrypted channel and for what purpose. But now suddenly Uber did it and it's bad?
- throwaway613834 9y agoI don't know if this is the reasoning, but I don't see any immediate contradictions in having different standards for individuals and corporations.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y agoSo if an organization says that its employees should always use an ephemeral messaging service for communication, it's inherently in the cloud of suspicion? Because that seems tantamount to saying that literally any communication between employees of the company (even verbal) must be recorded? What if all this communication had happened between them in those 'long walks' they took in San Francisco?
- rosser 9y agoIf that company is subject to data retention laws, yes.
- Analemma_ 9y agoYes. Sarbanes-Oxley requires business records to be kept for a reasonable length of time, and with ephemeral messaging that is impossible. So it would seem that these applications are illegal for business use by default.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 9y agoIf you want to operate a business you need to play by the rules for businesses. Private individuals have different expectations and laws governing their privacy. One major difference between individuals and corporations is that you can not really jail a corporation (though you can jail execs, but this rarely happens) and running a company is a privilege, not an innate right. So it stands to reason that if the law says you need to preserve your records that you do so in order to be able to hold the company accountable for its actions. Similar laws apply to your financial recordkeeping. Willfully destroying evidence, whether you are a private individual or a corporation is going to be frowned upon by a judge anyway, the best way to avoid all of this is to simply not commit any deeds that could be labeled crimes.