5 ms·

Somebody at Google made the conscious decision that enacting this intentionally defective policy -- in doing so, attempting to foist liability for data custody

Somebody at Google made the conscious decision that enacting this intentionally defective policy -- in doing so, attempting to foist liability for data custody upon individual employees -- and fighting the inevitable objections to it was a preferable course of action to actually preventing their employees from discussing anything that might be used against them in the suit. It's clever, but it doesn't reflect fondly on Google's underlying antitrust behavior, and I'd be pissed as an employee.

freejazz 4y ago
I don't think they were trying to shift liability, I think they were trying to make sure all the data was deleted, without themselves having to hit delete. It's their counsel's culpability that is being protected, i.e. the difference between being negligent or willful.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  From the article, "The DOJ said in a court filing Thursday that Google trained employees on the benefits of using “off the record chats." They were trying to avoid liability not transfer it.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    [dead]
- gmd63 4y ago
  When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? I've seen so many people strategically play dumb that at this point I don't believe whether or not a violation was accidental should have any weight on the punishment. Nature doesn't care whether our immune systems accidentally slack off, or whether we accidentally didn't protect our cities from a flood. Why would we provide an incentive structure for people to act like they are stupid?
  - rapind 4y ago
    I think people being negligent legitimately happens quite a bit. I agree though that when it comes to corporate behaviour, negligence should just be treated as willful intent.
    - Mtinie 4y ago
      Absolutely. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, nor is “whoops!”
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    It's very difficult to do this without introducing ThoughtCrime. The set of things that you could potentially have thought about doing is infinite. There's almost inevitably something in hindsight that you could have done to get the results that the prosecutor/plaintiff desired. The problem is that ordinary people without the benefit of hindsight fail to notice these options all the time, for all sorts of mundane reasons. If you criminalize negligence you're going to sweep an awful lot of innocent people up in your dragnet. Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity. I'd bet the latter is significantly more common. Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      Ignorance of the law doesn’t protect individuals from being prosecuted. This is excusing a two-tier system.
    - gmd63 4y ago
      I'm suggesting we abandon "ThoughtCrime". The way it is now, people analyze your intent and if they determine it is malicious you get punished. If you pretend to be ignorant you get let off the hook. Trying to look into someone's head is bad. That's what I'm saying.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      > Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity One answer is to punish it the same. in this circumstance, I don't think the facts work for google at all as they A) had the burden, and B) lied to the court saying that they complied. The court doesn't care about the individual workers at Google, it cares that Google lied to the court and also spoiled evidence.

freejazz 4y ago

I don't think they were trying to shift liability, I think they were trying to make sure all the data was deleted, without themselves having to hit delete. It's their counsel's culpability that is being protected, i.e. the difference between being negligent or willful.

IncRnd 4y ago
From the article, "The DOJ said in a court filing Thursday that Google trained employees on the benefits of using “off the record chats." They were trying to avoid liability not transfer it.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  [dead]
gmd63 4y ago
When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? I've seen so many people strategically play dumb that at this point I don't believe whether or not a violation was accidental should have any weight on the punishment. Nature doesn't care whether our immune systems accidentally slack off, or whether we accidentally didn't protect our cities from a flood. Why would we provide an incentive structure for people to act like they are stupid?
- rapind 4y ago
  I think people being negligent legitimately happens quite a bit. I agree though that when it comes to corporate behaviour, negligence should just be treated as willful intent.
  - Mtinie 4y ago
    Absolutely. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, nor is “whoops!”
- nostrademons 4y ago
  It's very difficult to do this without introducing ThoughtCrime. The set of things that you could potentially have thought about doing is infinite. There's almost inevitably something in hindsight that you could have done to get the results that the prosecutor/plaintiff desired. The problem is that ordinary people without the benefit of hindsight fail to notice these options all the time, for all sorts of mundane reasons. If you criminalize negligence you're going to sweep an awful lot of innocent people up in your dragnet. Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity. I'd bet the latter is significantly more common. Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Ignorance of the law doesn’t protect individuals from being prosecuted. This is excusing a two-tier system.
  - gmd63 4y ago
    I'm suggesting we abandon "ThoughtCrime". The way it is now, people analyze your intent and if they determine it is malicious you get punished. If you pretend to be ignorant you get let off the hook. Trying to look into someone's head is bad. That's what I'm saying.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    > Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity One answer is to punish it the same. in this circumstance, I don't think the facts work for google at all as they A) had the burden, and B) lied to the court saying that they complied. The court doesn't care about the individual workers at Google, it cares that Google lied to the court and also spoiled evidence.