7 ms·

Isn't Google going to get some sort of sanction for this specifically? I'm having a hard time following it all now, but I remember reading that the DOJ was goin

Isn't Google going to get some sort of sanction for this specifically? I'm having a hard time following it all now, but I remember reading that the DOJ was going to "sanction" Google and have been waiting for the court case to begin to see what that will amount to.

jeffbee 3y ago
Legal sanctions for spoliation are not always as satisfying as you are probably imagining. Putting aside whatever predisposition you have about Google and this case, I do find it troubling that American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app. Nobody thinks you have to record and preserve face-to-face communications, but apparently people want it to be that you always have to record and preserve them if there was some intermediate device used to do it, other than by voice. In the WFH era this bothers me.
- eep_social 3y ago
  > no such thing as going off the record Hard agree. I have personal bias in this case, but it’s crazy to me that sentiment on off the record chat in these threads has been so heavily weighted towards normalizing the idea that everything should be recorded. I would be horrified if certain of my Slack DMs end up in discovery at my current job. I have to admit that sometimes I just need to blow off some steam to my teammate who sits two states over, and we communicate on Slack or Zoom, both of which are automatically recorded and preserved for at least a short time. Bob in procurement is not a literal gnome-fucking-shit-smear-artist but sometimes I do feel that way. My barber doesn’t know Bob but my teammate sat in the same meeting where we got a raw deal so we bond over the experience by saying stupid things in a Slack DM conversation. Under the developing regime this kind of casual talk on company systems is a risk for both myself and my employer if it ends up getting keyword matched during discovery. Not sure where a reasonable line is but it does seem like the grey area needs urgent attention before tech turns into finance.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    That's not a developing regime, it's been the norm since email.
    - eep_social 3y ago
      But we are talking about messaging which has greatly displaced face to face conversation while email is flat or shrinking over the same time period.
      - nobody9999 3y ago
        >But we are talking about messaging which has greatly displaced face to face conversation while email is flat or shrinking over the same time period. That's irrelevant, IMHO. If an exchange is recorded, then it's fair game for legal discovery. I'll give you some (modified[0]) 25+ year-old advice that's just as relevant today to messaging/collaboration apps as it was to email: If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form. And that goes triple for anything shared on platforms you don't own and physically control -- especially those owned/controlled by your employer. You might just as well just wear a GoPro 24/7 and livestream the feed everywhere. I'd add that in a professional setting, anything that might even be tangentially related might well be subject to discovery in the event of a lawsuit. Don't like it? Get the laws changed. And good luck with that. You're gonna need it. [0] The original advice referenced "local newspapers" and email, but since the former are mostly gone and (at least you claim it's so) "email is flat or shrinking", I thought I'd update it for you. Edit: Fixed typo.
        eep_social 3y ago
        > If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form. Indeed, and 25 years ago the balance of communication was significantly less recorded, was the point of the story.
- boredpeter 3y ago
  I don’t see any issue with that if it only applies to corporations.
  - eep_social 3y ago
    I have several questions. Exactly how bored are you? Are you thinking C corporations like couple-owned small businesses and startups? Accurate Zoom transcripts can be automatically created for every call but this feature is off by default. When it defaults on, does the same rule apply? In terms of the rules and regulations, is there a digital means to have a private conversation? Am I permitted to FaceTime? Under what circumstances can myself and a co-worker communicate on personal devices? What is your personal opinion on return to office vs hybrid vs all-remote or remote first?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      I'll let you in a a little secret[0]: Three can keep a secret, if two are dead. [0] It's not really a secret, but rather a concept you might want to consider if you value your privacy.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    I can’t help but be amazed how willingly people are to give power to the government to surveil you. Would you really be okay with the government knowing everything you say during business hours? Should they also force companies to have microphones in conference rooms when you speak in person? In the bathroom?
    - rokkitmensch 3y ago
      I can't help but be amazed how many people think they have any agency at all over what the government and their employers can and will gleefully do.
    - 3y ago
- salawat 3y ago
  First off, welcome to Third Party Doctrine. If you don't like it, write your Congressperson and get them cracking. Second: this is only a problem where you have significant pressure/attempts to specifically avoid leaving paper trail in order to do something dicey. If you're fairly sure you shouldn't be doing it, and the only thing keeping you from talking about it is being on the record, then blurt that shit out on the record, because odds are you shouldn't be doing it.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  It puts a premium on in-person face-to-face communication. I'm okay with that, so long as any potential employer understand I also put a premium on it.
- avar 3y ago
  > American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app. Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged. But they'd like to spy on everyone's message traffic for their own purposes, at that point their logs are subject to subpoena.
  - dodobirdlord 3y ago
    > Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged. No, transient storage of chat records has specifically been categorized as unacceptable in exactly these ongoing Google litigations.
    - professoretc 3y ago
      It's only an issue in the current Google litigation because Google's current chat solution apparently has an option to enable logging for everybody. If you have an internal chat app that never logs messages -- say, the sender looks up the recipient's IP address on the VPN and connects to them directly -- then a court can't order you to write new code to enable logging. But if your chat app has a big master "log all messages" switch, a court can order you to turn it on.
      - dodobirdlord 3y ago
        > If you have an internal chat app that never logs messages -- say, the sender looks up the recipient's IP address on the VPN and connects to them directly -- then a court can't order you to write new code to enable logging. No, they absolutely can. You may be confusing this with various first amendment cases about compelled speech, given the focus on a court ordering code authorship. A regulator does not have to concern themselves with the mechanism of storage, they can simply designate communications as requiring storage. And they have done so in the case of electronic transmissions. The relevant law allows regulators to compel retention of written communications. Storing a communication in memory and sending it over the network to the memory of another computer for display is by itself sufficient to qualify as a written communication.

jeffbee 3y ago

Legal sanctions for spoliation are not always as satisfying as you are probably imagining. Putting aside whatever predisposition you have about Google and this case, I do find it troubling that American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app. Nobody thinks you have to record and preserve face-to-face communications, but apparently people want it to be that you always have to record and preserve them if there was some intermediate device used to do it, other than by voice. In the WFH era this bothers me.

eep_social 3y ago
> no such thing as going off the record Hard agree. I have personal bias in this case, but it’s crazy to me that sentiment on off the record chat in these threads has been so heavily weighted towards normalizing the idea that everything should be recorded. I would be horrified if certain of my Slack DMs end up in discovery at my current job. I have to admit that sometimes I just need to blow off some steam to my teammate who sits two states over, and we communicate on Slack or Zoom, both of which are automatically recorded and preserved for at least a short time. Bob in procurement is not a literal gnome-fucking-shit-smear-artist but sometimes I do feel that way. My barber doesn’t know Bob but my teammate sat in the same meeting where we got a raw deal so we bond over the experience by saying stupid things in a Slack DM conversation. Under the developing regime this kind of casual talk on company systems is a risk for both myself and my employer if it ends up getting keyword matched during discovery. Not sure where a reasonable line is but it does seem like the grey area needs urgent attention before tech turns into finance.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  That's not a developing regime, it's been the norm since email.
  - eep_social 3y ago
    But we are talking about messaging which has greatly displaced face to face conversation while email is flat or shrinking over the same time period.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >But we are talking about messaging which has greatly displaced face to face conversation while email is flat or shrinking over the same time period. That's irrelevant, IMHO. If an exchange is recorded, then it's fair game for legal discovery. I'll give you some (modified[0]) 25+ year-old advice that's just as relevant today to messaging/collaboration apps as it was to email: If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form. And that goes triple for anything shared on platforms you don't own and physically control -- especially those owned/controlled by your employer. You might just as well just wear a GoPro 24/7 and livestream the feed everywhere. I'd add that in a professional setting, anything that might even be tangentially related might well be subject to discovery in the event of a lawsuit. Don't like it? Get the laws changed. And good luck with that. You're gonna need it. [0] The original advice referenced "local newspapers" and email, but since the former are mostly gone and (at least you claim it's so) "email is flat or shrinking", I thought I'd update it for you. Edit: Fixed typo.
      - eep_social 3y ago
        > If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form. Indeed, and 25 years ago the balance of communication was significantly less recorded, was the point of the story.
boredpeter 3y ago
I don’t see any issue with that if it only applies to corporations.
- eep_social 3y ago
  I have several questions. Exactly how bored are you? Are you thinking C corporations like couple-owned small businesses and startups? Accurate Zoom transcripts can be automatically created for every call but this feature is off by default. When it defaults on, does the same rule apply? In terms of the rules and regulations, is there a digital means to have a private conversation? Am I permitted to FaceTime? Under what circumstances can myself and a co-worker communicate on personal devices? What is your personal opinion on return to office vs hybrid vs all-remote or remote first?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    I'll let you in a a little secret[0]: Three can keep a secret, if two are dead. [0] It's not really a secret, but rather a concept you might want to consider if you value your privacy.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  I can’t help but be amazed how willingly people are to give power to the government to surveil you. Would you really be okay with the government knowing everything you say during business hours? Should they also force companies to have microphones in conference rooms when you speak in person? In the bathroom?
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    I can't help but be amazed how many people think they have any agency at all over what the government and their employers can and will gleefully do.
  - 3y ago
salawat 3y ago
First off, welcome to Third Party Doctrine. If you don't like it, write your Congressperson and get them cracking. Second: this is only a problem where you have significant pressure/attempts to specifically avoid leaving paper trail in order to do something dicey. If you're fairly sure you shouldn't be doing it, and the only thing keeping you from talking about it is being on the record, then blurt that shit out on the record, because odds are you shouldn't be doing it.
TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
It puts a premium on in-person face-to-face communication. I'm okay with that, so long as any potential employer understand I also put a premium on it.
avar 3y ago
> American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app. Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged. But they'd like to spy on everyone's message traffic for their own purposes, at that point their logs are subject to subpoena.
- dodobirdlord 3y ago
  > Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged. No, transient storage of chat records has specifically been categorized as unacceptable in exactly these ongoing Google litigations.
  - professoretc 3y ago
    It's only an issue in the current Google litigation because Google's current chat solution apparently has an option to enable logging for everybody. If you have an internal chat app that never logs messages -- say, the sender looks up the recipient's IP address on the VPN and connects to them directly -- then a court can't order you to write new code to enable logging. But if your chat app has a big master "log all messages" switch, a court can order you to turn it on.
    - dodobirdlord 3y ago
      > If you have an internal chat app that never logs messages -- say, the sender looks up the recipient's IP address on the VPN and connects to them directly -- then a court can't order you to write new code to enable logging. No, they absolutely can. You may be confusing this with various first amendment cases about compelled speech, given the focus on a court ordering code authorship. A regulator does not have to concern themselves with the mechanism of storage, they can simply designate communications as requiring storage. And they have done so in the case of electronic transmissions. The relevant law allows regulators to compel retention of written communications. Storing a communication in memory and sending it over the network to the memory of another computer for display is by itself sufficient to qualify as a written communication.