4 ms·

I'm not sure that's a comparable situation as someone explicitly took an action to make a record. In the case of Chat it's all software automation. No one is ex

I'm not sure that's a comparable situation as someone explicitly took an action to make a record. In the case of Chat it's all software automation. No one is explicitly taking an action to make a record or destroy a record. There is the whole situation of people asking to switch to the no history mode, but that's not retroactively applied and it's really no different than sending an email that says "let's talk about this over the phone". The real open question is whether Chats can have a temporary nature to them as they are inherently a written record. But there's also other situations where you can have a written record, for example, if someone uses auto-captions on a video call. They're very short-lived, but they did exist for some duration.

nolok 3y ago
> I'm not sure that's a comparable situation as someone explicitly took an action to make a record. In the case of Chat it's all software automation. No one is explicitly taking an action to make a record or destroy a record. I am not sure why you are making this distinction when it doesn't exists. Litigation hold also means stop all software automation that would result in destruction of record, doesn't matter how many people know about it. Case in point: that is what happens to their 30 days old chat. This is the same thing if you trigger a litigation hold on your office365 account or whatever. And for the rest of your point: not only does the law not accept the "oh but I didn't know", for the obvious reason that then it's an easy out, but even if they did tolerate extreme exemple of it Google cannot in good faith claim lack of knowledge about THEIR OWN system, the litigation hold was not for those specific people who may or may not know it, it was for the company who is then in charge of ensuring their IT team does what the court ordered.
- devrand 3y ago
  I don't see where I stated that anyone was claiming ignorance. My point still holds: users had the option to create a record, but it was not the default. From that perspective the comparison provided does not hold. The real debate is about whether "off the record" text can exist at all, and if so, under what conditions/duration? Are captions on a video call a text record? Do those need to be retained?
  - nolok 3y ago
    Is this maybe a case where you may be mistakenly confusing record in the technical / computer sense, as opposed to record as meant in the legal sense ? Because your three last questions do not make sense in the legal view. > The real debate is about whether "off the record" text can exist at all, and if so, under what conditions/duration This question makes no sense, as you what you are asking is "can i not make a record, when i make a record of something to transmit it to someone else" > Are captions on a video call a text record? Do those need to be retained? Yes and yes, of course. It's legally a record. Again, this questions makes very little sense legally.

nolok 3y ago

> I'm not sure that's a comparable situation as someone explicitly took an action to make a record. In the case of Chat it's all software automation. No one is explicitly taking an action to make a record or destroy a record. I am not sure why you are making this distinction when it doesn't exists. Litigation hold also means stop all software automation that would result in destruction of record, doesn't matter how many people know about it. Case in point: that is what happens to their 30 days old chat. This is the same thing if you trigger a litigation hold on your office365 account or whatever. And for the rest of your point: not only does the law not accept the "oh but I didn't know", for the obvious reason that then it's an easy out, but even if they did tolerate extreme exemple of it Google cannot in good faith claim lack of knowledge about THEIR OWN system, the litigation hold was not for those specific people who may or may not know it, it was for the company who is then in charge of ensuring their IT team does what the court ordered.

devrand 3y ago
I don't see where I stated that anyone was claiming ignorance. My point still holds: users had the option to create a record, but it was not the default. From that perspective the comparison provided does not hold. The real debate is about whether "off the record" text can exist at all, and if so, under what conditions/duration? Are captions on a video call a text record? Do those need to be retained?
- nolok 3y ago
  Is this maybe a case where you may be mistakenly confusing record in the technical / computer sense, as opposed to record as meant in the legal sense ? Because your three last questions do not make sense in the legal view. > The real debate is about whether "off the record" text can exist at all, and if so, under what conditions/duration This question makes no sense, as you what you are asking is "can i not make a record, when i make a record of something to transmit it to someone else" > Are captions on a video call a text record? Do those need to be retained? Yes and yes, of course. It's legally a record. Again, this questions makes very little sense legally.