4 ms·

they knew the chats should have been saved, and repeatedly said they knew and said that they were doing that. They weren’t. here are the chats where they discus

they knew the chats should have been saved, and repeatedly said they knew and said that they were doing that. They weren’t. here are the chats where they discuss deleting the chats https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in-doj-antitrust-trial https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...

pyrale 3y ago
That article reads like a report on a criminal conspiracy. > “[W]ould it be too much to ask you to turn history off?,” another employee wrote in a chat about Mobile App Distribution Agreements, or MADAs, contracts that Google requires device manufacturers to enter into to license Google Mobile Services. “lots of sensitivity with legal these days :).” > Initially, Google had also claimed that it did not have the “ability to change default settings for individual custodians with respect to the chat history setting,” but evidence “plainly established that this representation was not truthful,” > Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.” How can you read this and not believe that these people knowingly participate in illegal business.
- fragmede 3y ago
  It's an attempt to move the digital world into the analog world. As a regular human having a quick throwaway conversation with someone, I'm not going to remember it weeks or months down the road. The same thing with digital. Signal has the same feature.
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    I'm failing to see how disappearing chat that is on by default differs from in-person conversations. If I have a video call, I'm not required to record it. If we have a meeting in-person I don't need to either. They will have the conversation off the record, and if text isn't available it will be a call or meeting instead.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      I'm saying that disappearing chat that is on by default is (trying to be) like in-person conversations. So it's easy to interpret person A's request to take the conversation off the record as evidence of a conspiracy, but maybe just just don't want a record of what they're saying because it's weird if I took a video recording of every in-person meeting I've ever had, and that weird feeling holds true in the digital realm as well.
      - pyrale 3y ago
        The issue here is not having an off-the-records conversation, it's saying that they want one because they're about to talk about something that would embarass legal.

pyrale 3y ago

That article reads like a report on a criminal conspiracy. > “[W]ould it be too much to ask you to turn history off?,” another employee wrote in a chat about Mobile App Distribution Agreements, or MADAs, contracts that Google requires device manufacturers to enter into to license Google Mobile Services. “lots of sensitivity with legal these days :).” > Initially, Google had also claimed that it did not have the “ability to change default settings for individual custodians with respect to the chat history setting,” but evidence “plainly established that this representation was not truthful,” > Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.” How can you read this and not believe that these people knowingly participate in illegal business.

fragmede 3y ago
It's an attempt to move the digital world into the analog world. As a regular human having a quick throwaway conversation with someone, I'm not going to remember it weeks or months down the road. The same thing with digital. Signal has the same feature.
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  I'm failing to see how disappearing chat that is on by default differs from in-person conversations. If I have a video call, I'm not required to record it. If we have a meeting in-person I don't need to either. They will have the conversation off the record, and if text isn't available it will be a call or meeting instead.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    I'm saying that disappearing chat that is on by default is (trying to be) like in-person conversations. So it's easy to interpret person A's request to take the conversation off the record as evidence of a conspiracy, but maybe just just don't want a record of what they're saying because it's weird if I took a video recording of every in-person meeting I've ever had, and that weird feeling holds true in the digital realm as well.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      The issue here is not having an off-the-records conversation, it's saying that they want one because they're about to talk about something that would embarass legal.