4 ms·

I wonder, if you destroy all the evidence this was exploited, can you still claim you don't have any evidence this was exploited? Asking for opinions from non-l

• Lutger 4y ago
  To be sure, use a clean room implementation: let IT destroy all the evidence, always. Then legal can claim 'we don't have any evidence'. source: I am not a lawyer
  • procombo 4y ago
    Works the same way with government. The "I am not aware of ..." is a great trick for when your organization is intentionally silod. The folks who get subpoenaed are left out of detailed info. It's a complete non-statement. I could bring up examples across both sides of the isle. It's all a big game.
• johndhi 4y ago
  haha. I am a lawyer so sorry, but while you might be able to claim that, you are legally and ethically obligated to also divulge the intentional spoiling of hte evidence.
  • justinclift 4y ago
    As if the people giving orders at some of these companies care about ethics... ;)
• Bedon292 4y ago
  Don't currently have? Sure. The quote says "At that time, we had no evidence" so I think that would be harder to argue. You could maybe make the case the statement means: At that specific moment we didn't have any evidence because we already destroyed it. But it certainly implies they mean they had not found any before that point in time.