3 ms·
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 liti
by 1_2__4 9y ago
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.
- rosser 9y agoIANAL, but I'm pretty sure the laws around tampering with/destroying evidence are crafted in such a way to make knowingly destroying evidence of a crime — even before that crime is under investigation — unambiguously illegal. If not, that would be an oil-tanker sized loophole for avoiding prosecution, and I don't think the folks crafting criminal evidentiary law were that dumb.
- vkou 9y agoIANAL, but it is an oil-tanker-sized loophole - as is conducting all your criminal dealings via in-person communications, instead of e-mail. If you are under a litigation hold, you cannot delete any data. If you are not under litigation hold, and your policy is that you shred all your records every Friday at 3PM... The courts will not hold your lack of records against you.
- rosser 9y agoLitigation holds are a thing in civil law. Evidentiary rules in criminal law are, AFAIK, a different beast.