4 ms·
The problem isn't how they communicated, and the article acknowledges this. Wickr and other "secret" apps are perfectly fine. But at the end of the day if the c
by paxy 9y ago
The problem isn't how they communicated, and the article acknowledges this. Wickr and other "secret" apps are perfectly fine. But at the end of the day if the court asks you for records relevant to a case, you are obligated to hand them over. "Oops the app deleted them" might not work for a judge.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y agoBut what if those logs didn't exist to begin with? Surely you are not suggesting that literally every communication that takes place in a company (verbal, written, or via gestures) be recorded and retained?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rosser 9y agoIt's not whether the logs exist, but whether the conversation was deliberately had using an ephemeral messaging service, in order to evade statutory data retention obligations. That's the criminality — the evasion, itself; not which tool was used, but why.
- bonzini 9y agoPeople use phones instead of email sometimes for sensitive conversations. Do phones count as ephemeral messaging services? What about voice mail?
- rosser 9y agoPhones have a record of the call having been made, and are subject to wiretapping. Ephemeral messaging services have neither.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y agoYou seem to be fixating over the specifics of individual communication mechanisms, which is not the point. For instance, will an insistence that execs of Uber only talk in air-gapped soundproof rooms be considered incriminating?
- rosser 9y agoI'm not the one "fixated" on the mechanism of communication. I've consistently talked about the motivation for using a given mechanism, and, when specific mechanisms have been raised, whether those mechanisms satisfy those motivations. I even specifically said, "not which tool was used, but why." Please don't drag the actual point down into the weeds like that — particularly while accusing me of being the one to do so.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ggg9990 9y agoIf the conversation is "sensitive" because you are trying to avoid recording evidence of your illegal activity, then yes, it's illegal.
- weddpros 9y agoSo... if you're doing something illegal, and you know your phone is tapped by the police, it is MANDATORY to use this phone to discuss your illegal activities. Otherwise you'll be prosecuted for it. I hate how stupid laws can get...
- dsp1234 9y agoWhich statutory data retention obligations are being talked about with regards to uber? The original commented seems to believe it's obvious.
- rosser 9y agoIf they were using an ephemeral messaging app to talk about the theft of trade secrets — a thing that is "black-letter" illegal — then the laws against destroying evidence of criminal behavior might be relevant?
- ancarda 9y agoDoes that hold if it’s company policy to do all communication over an ephemeral chat system? I’m struggling to understand this. It seems to suggest a company cannot discuss anything potentially problematic unless there’s a log. From the article: >companies have an obligation to preserve records that may be reasonably seen as relevant to litigation or that fall under data retention rules set by industry regulators. So, is that saying watercooler chat is ok over Snapchat but nothing serious? Edit: I think this is answered well here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15827511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15827511
- mywittyname 9y agoData retention laws are well-established and every major company I've worked for required training on what communications we are legally required to retain, how it should be retain and for how long.