4 ms·

> couldn't this just be circumvented by having an in-person meeting? here I present you a case for the perils of remote work

jkaplowitz 3y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that remote work doesn’t create a discoverable record if the conversation happens by unrecorded methods such as a video chat or phone call where the recording feature has not been enabled. The problem with Google Chat in this context is that even history-off Chats are kept for at least 24 hours before being destroyed (I’ve sometimes seen longer due to caching), so a record is created and then destroyed. That isn’t allowed when an obligation to preserve the record exists. I admit I don’t know whether something like un-logged IRC would be allowed, but at the very least, any IRC clients that do log the history even for the purpose of displaying it locally after a crash and restart would themselves create a discoverable record subject to any applicable preservation obligation. If you mean that remote workers are more likely to use Google Chat for sensitive information topics than in-person workers, yes, that could be an example of a peril of remote work. But, from the perspective of society rather than the company, making it harder for companies to hide misbehavior is actually an advantage of remote work. Disclosure: I have worked for Google in the past, but not for more than 8 years now, and I have no inside knowledge of or connection to anything discussed in the submitted PDF.
- gruez 3y ago
  >I admit I don’t know whether something like un-logged IRC would be allowed, but at the very least, any IRC clients that do log the history even for the purpose of displaying it locally after a crash and restart would themselves create a discoverable record subject to any applicable preservation obligation. This logic gets absurd when you push it to the limits. For instance, any sort of VOIP call would imply deletion, since the voice packets have to be buffered in memory for it to be decoded and played back. At least with respect to copyright law, the interpretation is reasonable. For instance, intermediary routers that copy packets as they pass through do not commit copyright infringement. pictures/videos that get cached on your device also doesn't count as copyright infringement.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    > This logic gets absurd when you push it to the limits. Judges won’t push the logic to its limits. They’ll look for a reasonable line, and give an annoyed look to people who go off on a technical “well actually VOIP packets are briefly in memory and then deleted, so it’s the same thing”. Judges recognize that arguments that are reasonable and logical in some domains aren’t perfectly generalizable to all cases. They’ll just (if it’s relevant to the case) make a ruling on whether transistory packets count as recording, and create a litigation hold (they’d almost certainly decide it doesn’t) and move on with their lives.
- zelon88 3y ago
  Why does everyone just assume that the software Google/Slack/other video/chat platforms use actually respect any of those settings? For all we know they simply mark this data as "deleted" and the GUI won't show it to you. In the USA there is practically no recourse users have if SAAS/PAAS simply decides to keep this data and not tell you about it. Google won't be investigated or punished, and you'll never get anyone on the phone to yell at about it. Taking them to court is like throwing money into a well. The truth is, if they decide to do it in secret you'd probably never even find out about it. Google is large enough to design its own hardware/firmware. They could probably implement this without many of their own internal teams being aware of it.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    The OP is about Google in court right now.
- e_y_ 3y ago
  "Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail" - Eliot Spitzer to CNN Money, an updated version of a much older saying by Martin Lomasney
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  I don't see a functional difference between a video chat and a text chat beyond the technical limitation that if a text message isn't kept for a short period of time then the recipient will likely not be able to read it. Where would you draw the line? Telling another human to deliver a verbal message only within the next 24 hours is okay. Training a parrot to do it is okay. Programming a robot to do the same is okay? Programming a computer to do that is not? Is it okay if it's a one hour delay? Four hours? Until it detects that the user has read it? Until the user manually marks it as read (does that count as explicit deletion)? If it's stored in RAM? On an HDD? On an SSD in swap? On ticker tape?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jkaplowitz 3y ago

I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that remote work doesn’t create a discoverable record if the conversation happens by unrecorded methods such as a video chat or phone call where the recording feature has not been enabled. The problem with Google Chat in this context is that even history-off Chats are kept for at least 24 hours before being destroyed (I’ve sometimes seen longer due to caching), so a record is created and then destroyed. That isn’t allowed when an obligation to preserve the record exists. I admit I don’t know whether something like un-logged IRC would be allowed, but at the very least, any IRC clients that do log the history even for the purpose of displaying it locally after a crash and restart would themselves create a discoverable record subject to any applicable preservation obligation. If you mean that remote workers are more likely to use Google Chat for sensitive information topics than in-person workers, yes, that could be an example of a peril of remote work. But, from the perspective of society rather than the company, making it harder for companies to hide misbehavior is actually an advantage of remote work. Disclosure: I have worked for Google in the past, but not for more than 8 years now, and I have no inside knowledge of or connection to anything discussed in the submitted PDF.

gruez 3y ago
>I admit I don’t know whether something like un-logged IRC would be allowed, but at the very least, any IRC clients that do log the history even for the purpose of displaying it locally after a crash and restart would themselves create a discoverable record subject to any applicable preservation obligation. This logic gets absurd when you push it to the limits. For instance, any sort of VOIP call would imply deletion, since the voice packets have to be buffered in memory for it to be decoded and played back. At least with respect to copyright law, the interpretation is reasonable. For instance, intermediary routers that copy packets as they pass through do not commit copyright infringement. pictures/videos that get cached on your device also doesn't count as copyright infringement.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > This logic gets absurd when you push it to the limits. Judges won’t push the logic to its limits. They’ll look for a reasonable line, and give an annoyed look to people who go off on a technical “well actually VOIP packets are briefly in memory and then deleted, so it’s the same thing”. Judges recognize that arguments that are reasonable and logical in some domains aren’t perfectly generalizable to all cases. They’ll just (if it’s relevant to the case) make a ruling on whether transistory packets count as recording, and create a litigation hold (they’d almost certainly decide it doesn’t) and move on with their lives.
zelon88 3y ago
Why does everyone just assume that the software Google/Slack/other video/chat platforms use actually respect any of those settings? For all we know they simply mark this data as "deleted" and the GUI won't show it to you. In the USA there is practically no recourse users have if SAAS/PAAS simply decides to keep this data and not tell you about it. Google won't be investigated or punished, and you'll never get anyone on the phone to yell at about it. Taking them to court is like throwing money into a well. The truth is, if they decide to do it in secret you'd probably never even find out about it. Google is large enough to design its own hardware/firmware. They could probably implement this without many of their own internal teams being aware of it.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  The OP is about Google in court right now.
e_y_ 3y ago
"Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail" - Eliot Spitzer to CNN Money, an updated version of a much older saying by Martin Lomasney
Ferret7446 3y ago
I don't see a functional difference between a video chat and a text chat beyond the technical limitation that if a text message isn't kept for a short period of time then the recipient will likely not be able to read it. Where would you draw the line? Telling another human to deliver a verbal message only within the next 24 hours is okay. Training a parrot to do it is okay. Programming a robot to do the same is okay? Programming a computer to do that is not? Is it okay if it's a one hour delay? Four hours? Until it detects that the user has read it? Until the user manually marks it as read (does that count as explicit deletion)? If it's stored in RAM? On an HDD? On an SSD in swap? On ticker tape?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]