3 ms·
Individual custodians just means employees, right? What incentive was there for employees to do this? I know that if I was told to do that, I would ignore it be
by irrational 4y ago
Individual custodians just means employees, right? What incentive was there for employees to do this? I know that if I was told to do that, I would ignore it because I have better things to do than fiddle with settings. The only way I would do it is if they said I’d be fired if I didn’t do it or they increased my salary and decreased my other responsibilities.
- Shakahs 4y agoI think "custodians" in this case means the administrators of the chat system. It was within their power to preserve this data, and they did not do so.
- jml7c5 4y agoThough it says "chat-by-chat basis", which sounds like individual user action.
- jonstewart 4y agoYes, so when you get sent a “legal hold” notice, and you click on some kind of acceptance, you are basically acknowledging that you’ll get fired if you don’t preserve the data. That’s how this works. The incentive to compliance is that you don’t get fired by your general counsel.
- irrational 4y agoI’m quite certain it will come out that nobody loses their jobs over this.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoIf someone is fired, then Upper management just used rank and file employees as a shield to escape legal liability. But if no-one is fired, then what? Responsibility just disappears?
- dwaite 4y agoThat a subordinate did not perform their duties does not absolve their superior of the consequences. The responsibility still ultimately falls on Google Legal and up to the executive team. They can choose to fire people if it makes them feel better, I suppose, but it won't change the consequences they will now face in litigation.