4 ms·

It doesn't matter. "Every day employees" are not the ones who needed to do this.

by ss108 4y ago

ROTMetro 4y ago
They can be if the policy was that individual employees needed to self enforce retention on XYZ topics and employees were provided training to that effect. The Feds can not say a company must retain all records going forward, only that it make reasonable effort to retain relevant records and training employees to place items going forward in some sort of vault historically qualifies, especially when this training/retention has been vetted as being acceptable by corporate/insurance company legal teams. There is no mens rea element to having system constraints due to an existing IT infrastructure budget and the Feds don't get to just blow that budget up because 'they have concerns' or else they could use 'concerns' as a weapon to destroy companies.
- donalhunt 4y ago
  Doesn't work like that. Done centrally. See https://support.google.com/vault/answer/7664657 https://support.google.com/vault/answer/7664657 The issue seems to be around use of "off the record" chat settings which are not covered by Vault (somewhat surprisingly for this audience; quite desirably for the target audience it would seem).
  - amluto 4y ago
    I’m a bit surprised no major enterprise customer has demanded that Google fix that.
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      What major enterprise customer uses Google as a chat service?
      - spydum 4y ago
        like nearly every google workspace customer? ive been in two 30k+ orgs to use this.. its no different than teams?
        anamexis 4y ago
        Every job I've had used Google Workspace, and none of them have used its chat.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        I doubt that nearly every google workspace customer uses google's chat. Having workspace just means that google's chat is available. The enterprises I work with, when asked, have said that they use or are moving to teams, and chatting is either outright banned or restricted. Other than that, Slack is used for non-scheduled chats. I'm sure there are other programs that various enterprises use, but I've never met one that uses Google's chat.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bluGill 4y ago
  Sure, but they need to ensure that their have training and audits/enforcement to ensure the policy works for everyone who isn't intentionally trying to cheat. If it was 1/a few employee(s) who didn't do the right thing, then that employee should probably go to prison for breaking the law. That is was most who didn't do the right thing suggests that the right thing was too hard to do, and it goes back to the company. (even if it is one employee they can make the case that they didn't understand the policy for some reason, which might put liability back on the company, but this is case by case)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Feds don't get to just blow that budget up because 'they have concerns' or else they could use 'concerns' as a weapon to destroy companies. Hello government, please leave my factory. Stop collecting evidence of the recent lethal safety incident, we need to mop up the blood and continue production. Yes, I know I am suspected of breaching the laws on workplace safety, but otherwise we'll blow the budget! Hello government, I am sorry to say you won't be getting any of those emails you've subpoenaed that incriminate me, I had to delete them to save $5 on my outlook subscribtion, it was blowing my budget.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > They can be if the policy was that individual employees needed to self enforce retention on XYZ topics and employees were provided training to that effect. Whatever the policy is, the company is obligated to preserve evidence. Internal policy does not change that. > The Feds can not say a company must retain all records going forward Not only can they, that's literally what the law (federal law for sure, and separately the law of every state, to the best of my knowledge), does require regarding evidence related to ongoing and reasonably anticipated litigation. There is an unconditional requirement to preserve evidence that is known, or reasonably should be known, to be relevant. > There is no mens rea element to having system constraints due to an existing IT infrastructure budget The legal requirement to retain evidence once litigation begins or is reasonably forseeable is not conditioned on “so long as that is easily doable within your pre-existing IT infrastructure budget”. If you don’t have a sufficient budget to meet your obligations when you become aware of them, you are obligate to take any steps reasonably necessary to meet those obligations, and if you fail to meet the obligations, there are legal remedies within the relevant litigation for simple failure without regard to mental state (though willful failures have more significant potential remedies within the case, up to and including instantly losing the case without trial.) Mens rea also matters a lot for whether additional civil and criminal penalties beyond sanctions in the immediate case are available (such as criminal charges of destroying records or documents to obstruct a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1519), though.

It doesn't matter. "Every day employees" are not the ones who needed to do this.

by ss108 4y ago

It doesn't matter. "Every day employees" are not the ones who needed to do this.

They can be if the policy was that individual employees needed to self enforce retention on XYZ topics and employees were provided training to that effect. The Feds can not say a company must retain all records going forward, only that it make reasonable effort to retain relevant records and training employees to place items going forward in some sort of vault historically qualifies, especially when this training/retention has been vetted as being acceptable by corporate/insurance company legal teams. There is no mens rea element to having system constraints due to an existing IT infrastructure budget and the Feds don't get to just blow that budget up because 'they have concerns' or else they could use 'concerns' as a weapon to destroy companies.

donalhunt 4y ago
Doesn't work like that. Done centrally. See https://support.google.com/vault/answer/7664657 https://support.google.com/vault/answer/7664657 The issue seems to be around use of "off the record" chat settings which are not covered by Vault (somewhat surprisingly for this audience; quite desirably for the target audience it would seem).
- amluto 4y ago
  I’m a bit surprised no major enterprise customer has demanded that Google fix that.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    What major enterprise customer uses Google as a chat service?
    - spydum 4y ago
      like nearly every google workspace customer? ive been in two 30k+ orgs to use this.. its no different than teams?
      - anamexis 4y ago
        Every job I've had used Google Workspace, and none of them have used its chat.
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        I doubt that nearly every google workspace customer uses google's chat. Having workspace just means that google's chat is available. The enterprises I work with, when asked, have said that they use or are moving to teams, and chatting is either outright banned or restricted. Other than that, Slack is used for non-scheduled chats. I'm sure there are other programs that various enterprises use, but I've never met one that uses Google's chat.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 4y ago
Sure, but they need to ensure that their have training and audits/enforcement to ensure the policy works for everyone who isn't intentionally trying to cheat. If it was 1/a few employee(s) who didn't do the right thing, then that employee should probably go to prison for breaking the law. That is was most who didn't do the right thing suggests that the right thing was too hard to do, and it goes back to the company. (even if it is one employee they can make the case that they didn't understand the policy for some reason, which might put liability back on the company, but this is case by case)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Feds don't get to just blow that budget up because 'they have concerns' or else they could use 'concerns' as a weapon to destroy companies. Hello government, please leave my factory. Stop collecting evidence of the recent lethal safety incident, we need to mop up the blood and continue production. Yes, I know I am suspected of breaching the laws on workplace safety, but otherwise we'll blow the budget! Hello government, I am sorry to say you won't be getting any of those emails you've subpoenaed that incriminate me, I had to delete them to save $5 on my outlook subscribtion, it was blowing my budget.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> They can be if the policy was that individual employees needed to self enforce retention on XYZ topics and employees were provided training to that effect. Whatever the policy is, the company is obligated to preserve evidence. Internal policy does not change that. > The Feds can not say a company must retain all records going forward Not only can they, that's literally what the law (federal law for sure, and separately the law of every state, to the best of my knowledge), does require regarding evidence related to ongoing and reasonably anticipated litigation. There is an unconditional requirement to preserve evidence that is known, or reasonably should be known, to be relevant. > There is no mens rea element to having system constraints due to an existing IT infrastructure budget The legal requirement to retain evidence once litigation begins or is reasonably forseeable is not conditioned on “so long as that is easily doable within your pre-existing IT infrastructure budget”. If you don’t have a sufficient budget to meet your obligations when you become aware of them, you are obligate to take any steps reasonably necessary to meet those obligations, and if you fail to meet the obligations, there are legal remedies within the relevant litigation for simple failure without regard to mental state (though willful failures have more significant potential remedies within the case, up to and including instantly losing the case without trial.) Mens rea also matters a lot for whether additional civil and criminal penalties beyond sanctions in the immediate case are available (such as criminal charges of destroying records or documents to obstruct a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1519), though.