3 ms·

To 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 regardle

• xiphias2 4y ago
  And 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 ago
  The 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.