4 ms·

It's because many kinds of lawsuits (not only the government's) can go into discovery and when you have 130k+ employees generating discoverable materials it bec

It's because many kinds of lawsuits (not only the government's) can go into discovery and when you have 130k+ employees generating discoverable materials it becomes very costly to search and provide these for lawsuits. It's easier to set an auto-delete policy and attempt to avoid certain things from being available for it. You aren't necessarily trying to hid conversations. You are trying to reduce the amount of content you have to search through during discovery.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sobkas 4y ago
> It's because many kinds of lawsuits (not only the government's) can go into discovery and when you have 130k+ employees generating discoverable materials it becomes very costly to search and provide these for lawsuits. If only they have technology that would help them doing such searches...
- kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
  They should train Bard on their internal emails.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Heh Heh Heh If it's anything like their current search tech, then it's not really fit for purpose eh? Maybe they should outsource this "it needs to work otherwise gov fines!" search piece to something more effective. Like maybe Yahoo? ;)
  - admax88qqq 4y ago
    Literally every tech company does this. Discovery was different when most communications were in person and company memos we're on paper. Even then companies shredded memos after a while, they're not worth the cost to store them. Now with computers and everyone working via slack all day it's cheap to store everything everyone has said in your company and the laws around discovery haven't been updated so all of that content now has to be checked at the cost of the one being sued.
leoh 4y ago
Not only that, the things that could be perceived as incriminating but are not given an adversary is not insignificant. It’s not an uncommon practice.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Um, no. You're wrong about that. And I was there. In the beginning, all instant messages were saved. This was handy because a lot of useful, non-sensitive information was sent over IM. Then, lawsuits and Discovery happened, and "Off The Record" became the default. You could turn things On The Record if your conversation was non-sensitive. > You are trying to reduce the amount of content you have to search through This is Google we're talking about here.
- stingrae 4y ago
  It changed circa 2015-2016.
saagarjha 4y ago
No, this is what the legal team would say when people asked them why they instituted a short retention policy and they didn’t want to say “we keep having crimes show up when people do discovery against us”. This would also result in an attempt to reduce the amount of content needed to search through during discovery.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > No, this is what the legal team would say when people asked them why they instituted a short retention policy and they didn’t want to say “we keep having crimes show up when people do discovery against us”. This is the corporate response to the modern "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" legal system. Everybody is always breaking the law, often because following it is impossible (e.g. different laws require mutually incompatible actions), but mostly because nobody knows all the laws and people regularly break them unintentionally. Corporate lawyers have no ability to change this since it would require making the laws clear and consistent and simple enough for people to understand, so instead they try to make it harder for anyone to find which laws their clients broke. Then we have to try not to cheer when the victim is somebody we don't like.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sobkas 4y ago

> It's because many kinds of lawsuits (not only the government's) can go into discovery and when you have 130k+ employees generating discoverable materials it becomes very costly to search and provide these for lawsuits. If only they have technology that would help them doing such searches...

kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
They should train Bard on their internal emails.
justinclift 4y ago
Heh Heh Heh If it's anything like their current search tech, then it's not really fit for purpose eh? Maybe they should outsource this "it needs to work otherwise gov fines!" search piece to something more effective. Like maybe Yahoo? ;)
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Literally every tech company does this. Discovery was different when most communications were in person and company memos we're on paper. Even then companies shredded memos after a while, they're not worth the cost to store them. Now with computers and everyone working via slack all day it's cheap to store everything everyone has said in your company and the laws around discovery haven't been updated so all of that content now has to be checked at the cost of the one being sued.

leoh 4y ago

Not only that, the things that could be perceived as incriminating but are not given an adversary is not insignificant. It’s not an uncommon practice.

AlbertCory 4y ago

Um, no. You're wrong about that. And I was there. In the beginning, all instant messages were saved. This was handy because a lot of useful, non-sensitive information was sent over IM. Then, lawsuits and Discovery happened, and "Off The Record" became the default. You could turn things On The Record if your conversation was non-sensitive. > You are trying to reduce the amount of content you have to search through This is Google we're talking about here.

stingrae 4y ago
It changed circa 2015-2016.

saagarjha 4y ago

No, this is what the legal team would say when people asked them why they instituted a short retention policy and they didn’t want to say “we keep having crimes show up when people do discovery against us”. This would also result in an attempt to reduce the amount of content needed to search through during discovery.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> No, this is what the legal team would say when people asked them why they instituted a short retention policy and they didn’t want to say “we keep having crimes show up when people do discovery against us”. This is the corporate response to the modern "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" legal system. Everybody is always breaking the law, often because following it is impossible (e.g. different laws require mutually incompatible actions), but mostly because nobody knows all the laws and people regularly break them unintentionally. Corporate lawyers have no ability to change this since it would require making the laws clear and consistent and simple enough for people to understand, so instead they try to make it harder for anyone to find which laws their clients broke. Then we have to try not to cheer when the victim is somebody we don't like.