2 ms·
> why would that not apply to verbal communications as well Because total surveillance has never been goal or precedent. The legal profession has always under
by 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 agoThat 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 agoIn times of remote work and working from home, there's no meaningful difference between recording all conversation in office and retaining all private chats.