8 ms·
Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoMore plaintext summary at Ars for those looking for the Cliff Notes version: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-google-destroyed-evidence-and-repeatedly-gave-false-info-to-court/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog... This pertains both to the lawsuit from Epic Games as well as from the Department of Justice.
- hanniabu 4y agoIt's worth it b/c corporations only get penalized with measly fines
- timemct 4y agoI’ve often thought that when a company, especially one as big as Alphabet/Google, gets fined, it’s simply seen as an operating cost and not as a motivator to do better.
- verisimi 4y agoSo do the execs at google. And what is "better" anyway? Morality won't pay the bills.. Engineering society to do whatever it is you want society to do is good business however. You'd hope this is where government and its legislative arm would step in to speak up for the 'citizens' but in fact, government is just the other wing of the same bird.
- Ekaros 4y agoClearly fines aren't sufficiently high. I think we need to scale them with revenue. Like towards 25-50%. Maybe with some payment plan if needed taking money from employer/executive bonuses, stock buybacks and dividends until it is paid with full interest.
- Gibbon1 4y agoRandom thought people say you can't put a corporation in jail. Well they're wrong. You could sentence the board to serve a stint in jail. Or management. Or even everyone that works there. Want to talk about lighting a fire under people.
- tracker1 4y agoI look at so many issues in the US... the East Palistine train derailment and SVB bank... and wish that would actually happen (to sr mgt and boards) in practice.
- midoridensha 4y agoThat would be great, but it's hard to see this ever happening in America.
- rodgerd 4y agoThe reason that banks generally take AMLAT rules so seriously is that the fines are vastly higher than any profit that can be generated by breaking them. Where I live they're in the order of up to a million per transaction that violates the rules. CBA in Australia was fined $700 million and Westpac $1.3 billion for mere tens of thousands of transactions that were in breach. They have spent a lot of time and money fixing their shit since then, unsurprisingly. Fines that punch through to individuals are another great motivator. Health and safety rules suddenly started getting taken a great deal more seriously in my neck of the woods when managers became personally liable for up to $200,000 for breaches.
- henriquez 4y ago[flagged]
- darth_avocado 4y agoPeople who directly contributed to destroying evidence should also be arrested the same way you would for destroying evidence in any other crimes. (Even if you’re claiming negligence)
- dragonwriter 4y ago> People who directly contributed to destroying evidence should also be arrested the same way you would for destroying evidence in any other crimes. This is not a criminal case, so “evidence in any other crimes” is inappropriate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gsatic 4y agoWe haven't yet figured out how to shutdown cancer once they get past a certain scale. Large tech firms are like cancer is what the last two decades have taught us.
- tracker1 4y ago"too big to fail" pretty much sums it up... roughly equivalent to, we do a lot of campaign funding.
- drstewart 4y agoGovernments should be in the habit of shutting down any and all enterprises at a drop of a hat. Any infraction should result in immediate termination + mass arrests as you correctly point out. Countries that have taken this approach (i.e. Cuba, Zimbabwe) have shown great success and flourishing, thriving economies.
- 4y ago
- Tuna-Fish 4y agoWhat's in play here is not a fine, but courtroom sanctions that potentially hurt their case. For example, the most powerful remedy Epic has asked from the court is "adverse inference", which would mean that the judge tells the jury that instead of judging the case on the basis of evidence presented by both parties, they should consider absence of evidence to be in favor of Epic. This can be quite devastating for your case.
- badpun 4y agoIt's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.
- SegFaultx64 4y agoWhat’s funny about this take is I can’t tell if it’s super leftist and “lock up the bankers” or super capitalist and “we will never know show did this”. Schrödinger's Comment
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoPerhaps the solution then is to identify every individual who chose to keep chat history off despite awareness of the litigation hold (particularly those where evidence exists here showing it was an intentional choice), charge them with contempt of court, and put them in jail for a year or so. It's a crime, you can get jail time for it, and if you do it enough times, people will pay attention to it.
- brutusurp 4y ago[flagged]
- salawat 4y agoMore accurately, it's not the gun, it's the people weilding/operating it... Except corporations are magical things that shield you from consequences of doing illegal things apparently, so nope, Google did it.
- newfonewhodis 4y agoThen why does "Google" get tax benefits and not individuals?
- badpun 4y agoWhy do corporation pay taxes is a good question in the first place. The same income is taxed twice - at corporate level first, and then when dividends are paid out (or, in case of buybacks, when shareholders give back their shares to Google in exchange for the profit that was already taxed). From what I've seen at my very cursory look at taxation policy textbooks, the official policy is that taxes don't have to make sense or be fair. They just have to be accepted enough by the population to not stir up trouble, and raise enough money for state to function. Hence the double taxation of corporate profits.
- sebzim4500 4y agoIt's a useful reminder not to pay attention to legal commentary from HN, most of the comments were saying that Google did nothing wrong w.r.t. these messages.
- user982 4y agoE.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35224167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35224167
- bcrosby95 4y agoAh, the stodgy old "only ever discuss things with experts" advice.
- danaris 4y agoNo, more like "don't listen to smug programmers when they tell you they have a foolproof strategy for beating the legal system that relies purely on technology."
- sebzim4500 4y agoMore that no one is as smart as the average HN user thinks they are.
- pavon 4y agoTo be fair nearly all those comments gave arguments about what the law ought be, not about what it actually was. Those two things shouldn't be confused regardless of who is arguing them.
- xiphias2 4y agoAnd for a good reason: the new Restrict act that bans private digital E2E communication in US gives unprecedented level of power to the US government.
- revelio 4y agoThe relevant bit of law says: "If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it" The argument revolved around whether transient chats are "stored" or not. The judge says yes for chats, but doesn't mention phone calls. The comments pointed out that there's no reason not to extend the same argument to phone or video calls, or perhaps in an extreme interpretation any communication transiently picked up by a device that could have theoretically recorded it e.g. an IoT smart speaker that listens for commands. The judgement also says: The Committee Notes for Subdivision (e) state that the rule embodies the “common-law duty” of “potential litigants . . . to preserve relevant information when litigation is reasonably foreseeable.” Well that's a problem and a half. So now this obligation to record everything previously considered transient doesn't only trigger once you are actually being sued. It applies even before you are sued, if a judge thinks that the litigation was "reasonably foreseeable" which could mean almost anything.
- tiahura 4y agoEven so, the principle of proportionality demands that the remedy fit the wrong, and the Court would like to see the state of play of the evidence at the end of fact discovery. At that time, plaintiffs will be better positioned to tell the Court what might have been lost in the Chat communications. No sanctions for now.
- fsckboy 4y ago> The Court has repeatedly asked Google why it never mentioned Chat until the issue became a substantial problem. It has not provided an explanation, which is worrisome, especially in light of its unlimited access to accomplished legal counsel, and its long experience with the duty of evidence preservation. courts never stray "outside the case" but I wish they had said "...and google's long experience saving every scrap of information about everybody on the planet they can find, so weird they would delete this information" ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. It's not the direct sanction against this behavior that is the worst part, but whatever the case is about going against you.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you This is the concept of "adverse inference", and Epic has indeed requested the court instruct the jury of this. However, at this time that hasn't been decided by the court.
- dragonwriter 4y agoThe court might do more or (less likely, as I read the order) less than that in this case, having explicitly said it wants to see the state of play of evidence at the end of discovery before making a decision, and only ruling out “terminating sanctions” (i.e., summary judgement now against Google) at this point.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago> courts never stray “outside the case” They do, regularly, otherwise the entire concept of “obiter dictum” wouldn’t exist. > ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. The court can (rough summary of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (1) Itself (in a bench trial), or by direction to the jury (in a jury trial), allow that to serve as the basis for adverse inference as you describe, or (2) Simply direct a finding of fact against the party who does that (bypassing the jury, in a jury trial), or (3) Strike any claims of the party at fault that the discovery touches on from the case entirely, or (4) Dismiss the case (if the party is the plaintiff) or render summary judgement against the party (in any case), (5) Treat the failure as a contempt of court and sanction it that, or (6) any combination of those (and a few other things) that it thinks is appropriate.
- Forbo 4y ago"Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful"... Except when it makes us look bad.
- livelielife 4y agowith all this multiverse stuff... I suppose only whomever is part of google's universe can access it now. the rest are now in the "multiverse".
- pessimizer 4y agoTypical. Google: Remembering the number and types of pets we think you may own, for decades, but quietly destroying information about ourselves in a process consistent with how that information is classified under our recently updated data retention policy.
- davidthewatson 4y agoHow's this working out for them? https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ Doesn't seem like the transformation from "don't be evil" hit its intended ethics target.
- livelielife 4y agoif it were possible to do so (if they were a human) they would be put in jail but that would mean nobody can use google anymore cuz they're in jail
- AlbertCory 4y ago> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just glad I wasn't subpoena'ed. "Off the record" on a chat was often interpreted as "anything goes" including by people who should have known better. It should not have been, and I definitely heard lawyers say "if it's something you wouldn't want to come out in court, then don't say it via the computer, whether it's on OR off the record."
- tracker1 4y agoSome businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.
- vkou 4y agoI've always been told by corporate training that unless a lawyer is being asked a particular legal question, simply including them in a conversation does not raise an attorney-client confidentiality shield.
- gumby 4y agoJust having a lawyer in the room doesn’t make the conversation privileged. It’s a conversation with the lawyer that is privileged, so they actually have to be a participant.
- runnerup 4y agoUhh...it's also not privileged, if the lawyer is participating in the discussion about ongoing planning of criminal activity. http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-guide-to-attorney-client.html http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu... > [The lawyer] Hagen is not only party to that decision but party to a detailed discussion of methods. He cannot pretend attorney-client privilege here either.
- hot_gril 4y agoThe disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too.
- zamnos 4y agothere's a group to join to enable history by default.
- hot_gril 4y agoIt still has a timeout, just a longer one, and there's some caveat about the other side sending first that I forget. The only solid solution is to discuss everything in a space instead of a regular group/1:1 chat.
- mike_d 4y agoGetting yourself put on legal hold was also great for email/chat retention.
- hgsgm 4y agoNot according to the OP.
- javawizard 4y agoAnd even that has a timeout, just a much longer one.
- xen0 4y agoThis doesn't work when someone else outside of the group initiates a conversation. It's a fantastic feature; meaning I am never distracted on a European Monday morning by what someone sent me on an American Friday afternoon. ;)
- compiler-guy 4y ago"The disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too." This disappearing chat messages are a pain in the ass for employees, but they were a pain in the ass for employees too.
- MBCook 4y agoSo will they be fined or have some other punishment? Or maybe there will be a future hearing to determine that?
- bbunix 4y agoYes, it's at the end of the document. Penalties will be assessed once fact discovery is complete. Monetary damages of legal costs related to this issue are to be presented to the court by the plaintiff.
- blibble 4y agoI'm sure the AI this company will produce will "do no evil"
- Scubabear68 4y agoGoogle must have thought the court was a customer.
- Sandworm5639 4y ago> At any given time, Google has thousands of employees who are under a litigation hold for document preservation. Crazy, it's an order of magnitude more than I'd guess. > Lim testified that the thought process that he might need to save something that was said because he was subject to a legal hold simply “doesn’t occur because, as I said, I’m under so many legal holds, it’s impossible to think that way.” This is also a crazy thing to say. But I guess I misunderstand something here, just before that it says that he did try to save _something_ copying it into docs etc and the problem is that he wasn't saving _everything_.
- hgsgm 4y agoI think he meant that he can't spend his whole life reviewing every document he touches against every legal hold he is under. And if it's so important, management should be automatically saving everything.
- sacnoradhq 4y agoNever write something on internal chat that could end up in court or seen by grandma on the news. If you want to have watercooler discussions, make a Session or Signal channel.
- sacnoradhq 4y agoThe other thing is that if the judge or prosecutor puts tech on legal holds on particular people or departments, then all systems must be able to stop deletion. Also, how does anyone get work done at Google if their chat continually erases itself?
- hgsgm 4y agoHow does anyone get work done if their spoken conversations are never recorded in the first place? Using chat as a knowledge base is living in a spam swamp.