5 ms·

Is the DoJ's argument that if you anticipate being sued in the future, you're not allowed to use private messaging at all?

tantalor 4y ago
I think the argument is, if you are on a lit hold and preserving some of your written communications, then you have to preserve all of them. You can't decide to shield some of them. That makes sense, I guess, but why would that not apply to verbal communications as well?
- cma 4y ago
  > why would that not apply to verbal communications as well? Corporate body cams. They wanted it first for fast food register workers but maybe it comes to white collar jobs first (aside from police). It is already sort of there with work from home surveillance-ware.
  - tantalor 4y ago
    For that matter, the assistants built into phones and smart home devices are always listening for their wake word, I assume they have a little buffer of recorded sound which they are constantly erasing. Is that spoliation?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > why would that not apply to verbal communications as well Because total surveillance has never been goal or precedent. The legal profession has always understood that people act differently when they speak and when they write. It is unrealistic to hold people accountable to every mis-spoken word, mistake or dumb thing they have said in spur of the moment. If I ask someone 'how long will X take' and they must answer on the spot, I do not expect an accurate answer. When you are writing, you have a chance to think through what you are saying. You should also be aware that these words could be read in 1 hour or in 1 day, and they still need to be understood correctly. You could be help accountable for the promises, whether legally, or informally by friends and family. That's why the law recognizes the superiority of written versus verbal agreements.
  - tantalor 4y ago
    > these words could be read in 1 hour or in 1 day Not if you rely on the ephemeral nature of "auto delete" chat messages
  - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
    > If I ask someone 'how long will X take' and they must answer on the spot, I do not expect an accurate answer. Man, you and my boss are not the same person!
  - linza 4y ago
    That sounds like a reasonable distinction between verbal and written as in email or memo, but chat is then in a grey area. Chat is used more often than not in a casual conversational way that does not promote a lot of thinking before writing.
  - izacus 4y ago
    In times of remote work and working from home, there's no meaningful difference between recording all conversation in office and retaining all private chats.
cldellow 4y ago
I think the argument is that if: > All this time, Google falsely told the United States that Google had “put a legal hold in place” that “suspends auto-deletion.” ...then you better not be auto-deleting things for the next 3 years. The lawsuit details that the language Google used when telling the DOJ what they were protecting. Hangouts is included in that language. Google also revised their retention policies for chats not once, but _twice_ during the litigation, but somehow no-one thought that maybe deleting the chats should be mentioned to the US government.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  > Hangouts is included in that language. Well it would be funny if their counterargument is that "Hangouts" was a specific thing and the OTR chats were actually on one of that company's 600 other chat products.
  - dd36 4y ago
    Now we know why they phase out products so quickly! Plausible deniability!
- esotericimpl 4y ago
  [dead]
bluGill 4y ago
The policy is if you are doing something illegal than you must keep all records of it. It is also that once your are sued you have to immediately stop all efforts to delete related conversations. I know my company often has to go in and turn off all automated deletes for a short time (a couple days?) while the lawyers figure out what keywords and people matter, then just keywords and people are locked down. Then more individual review of what remains to decide what is relevant, where if there is any doubt at all it is relevant and isn't deleted. Cases/investigations can last for years.
stefan_ 4y ago
Who is you? Why should a company and its employees, afforded limited legal liability, have "private messaging" in the course of its business?
- izacus 4y ago
  Same reason why 24/7 surveillance of everything you do in your life is destructive for society. When you're a "company employee" for at least third of your life you're still human that deserves some privacy away from spying eyes of HR, lawyers and government looking for something you did wrong. (Is this really so hard to understand? Is that something we from ex-socialist totalitarian regimes really understand?)

tantalor 4y ago

I think the argument is, if you are on a lit hold and preserving some of your written communications, then you have to preserve all of them. You can't decide to shield some of them. That makes sense, I guess, but why would that not apply to verbal communications as well?

cma 4y ago
> why would that not apply to verbal communications as well? Corporate body cams. They wanted it first for fast food register workers but maybe it comes to white collar jobs first (aside from police). It is already sort of there with work from home surveillance-ware.
- tantalor 4y ago
  For that matter, the assistants built into phones and smart home devices are always listening for their wake word, I assume they have a little buffer of recorded sound which they are constantly erasing. Is that spoliation?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> why would that not apply to verbal communications as well Because total surveillance has never been goal or precedent. The legal profession has always understood that people act differently when they speak and when they write. It is unrealistic to hold people accountable to every mis-spoken word, mistake or dumb thing they have said in spur of the moment. If I ask someone 'how long will X take' and they must answer on the spot, I do not expect an accurate answer. When you are writing, you have a chance to think through what you are saying. You should also be aware that these words could be read in 1 hour or in 1 day, and they still need to be understood correctly. You could be help accountable for the promises, whether legally, or informally by friends and family. That's why the law recognizes the superiority of written versus verbal agreements.
- tantalor 4y ago
  > these words could be read in 1 hour or in 1 day Not if you rely on the ephemeral nature of "auto delete" chat messages
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  > If I ask someone 'how long will X take' and they must answer on the spot, I do not expect an accurate answer. Man, you and my boss are not the same person!
- linza 4y ago
  That sounds like a reasonable distinction between verbal and written as in email or memo, but chat is then in a grey area. Chat is used more often than not in a casual conversational way that does not promote a lot of thinking before writing.
- izacus 4y ago
  In times of remote work and working from home, there's no meaningful difference between recording all conversation in office and retaining all private chats.

cldellow 4y ago

I think the argument is that if: > All this time, Google falsely told the United States that Google had “put a legal hold in place” that “suspends auto-deletion.” ...then you better not be auto-deleting things for the next 3 years. The lawsuit details that the language Google used when telling the DOJ what they were protecting. Hangouts is included in that language. Google also revised their retention policies for chats not once, but _twice_ during the litigation, but somehow no-one thought that maybe deleting the chats should be mentioned to the US government.

jeffbee 4y ago
> Hangouts is included in that language. Well it would be funny if their counterargument is that "Hangouts" was a specific thing and the OTR chats were actually on one of that company's 600 other chat products.
- dd36 4y ago
  Now we know why they phase out products so quickly! Plausible deniability!
esotericimpl 4y ago
[dead]

bluGill 4y ago

The policy is if you are doing something illegal than you must keep all records of it. It is also that once your are sued you have to immediately stop all efforts to delete related conversations. I know my company often has to go in and turn off all automated deletes for a short time (a couple days?) while the lawyers figure out what keywords and people matter, then just keywords and people are locked down. Then more individual review of what remains to decide what is relevant, where if there is any doubt at all it is relevant and isn't deleted. Cases/investigations can last for years.

stefan_ 4y ago

Who is you? Why should a company and its employees, afforded limited legal liability, have "private messaging" in the course of its business?

izacus 4y ago
Same reason why 24/7 surveillance of everything you do in your life is destructive for society. When you're a "company employee" for at least third of your life you're still human that deserves some privacy away from spying eyes of HR, lawyers and government looking for something you did wrong. (Is this really so hard to understand? Is that something we from ex-socialist totalitarian regimes really understand?)