I agree with all your analysis here. This judgement has far reaching consequences. It's reminiscent of discussions around MGM using automated facial recognition

I agree with all your analysis here. This judgement has far reaching consequences. It's reminiscent of discussions around MGM using automated facial recognition to ban people from venues. Our legal framework was set up with an implicit assumption that identifying people and banning them from a business is hard to scale. As soon as you can do it en-masse for thousands of employees of a rival business, the calculus might need to change. Similarly, our legal framework around the retention of corporate communications was originally framed around only official (and relatively uncommon) communications like memos being on the record. Then email. Now chat. Soon all meetings and phone calls? Each step here is a major step-change that requires careful consideration!