4 ms·

There are already companies in this space that specialize in archival tools for old messages - Smarsh or Global Relay. Matt Levine has written about this a lot

There are already companies in this space that specialize in archival tools for old messages - Smarsh or Global Relay. Matt Levine has written about this a lot - back in the day when these rules were made, the only writing that were meant to be preserved were handwritten letters and memos. Today, regulators have a treasure trove of communication on which to build a case - their only limitation is the ability to process it. It's funny to me how many of these cases end up getting built on an email that turns up in a search where someone says "gee - I really think we are doing a crime here! Are we doing a crime? I really hope we aren't doing a crime." Like, the person might have had the most innocent intentions, but they end up manifesting the charges they are complicit in. Meanwhile, companies who do some real evil stuff get off scot-free because no one had the moral thought to have their doubts in writing.

paulddraper 3y ago
> Meanwhile, companies who do some real evil stuff get off scot-free because no one had the moral thought to have their doubts in writing. No, belief or doubts has absolutely nothing to do with whether you committed a crime or not. It has to do with whether it was with malice/intention.
- nightowl_games 3y ago
  Your speaking with too much absolutism. It doesn't matter whether you committed a crime or not, it matters if you can be convicted. That distinction illuminates the ambiguity and uncertainty that is it inherent in the justice system.
- lazide 3y ago
  Intent is a required element in many crimes (mens rea), and proving so is often hard. Unless someone writes one of these emails, like they noted. Fraud, for instance. Or murder vs manslaughter vs ‘an accident’. Smoking gun emails can totally sink a case or get people convicted.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Intent is relevant to the severity. Murder is a crime, manslaughter is a crime. Criminal fraud requires intent, civil fraud does not. Lacking intent does not make it "scot-free."
    - lazide 3y ago
      The difference between murder, manslaughter, an accident, or even justifiable homicide is exactly one of intent/knowledge. 2 of those 4 are crimes. 2 are not. Criminal fraud and civil fraud both require knowledge (or a reasonable belief that it was likely) that one was lying - which is intent, if one moves forward. Thinking you are telling the truth (actually!) means no fraud. There are many crimes that do not exist without intent. There are also many crimes that exist regardless of intent, like possession of controlled substances, statutory rape, etc. Now damn near anything can be a tort of course, but while those can produce large damages in a civil suit - they aren’t crimes per se. You’d need a criminal violation for that.
- pixl97 3y ago
  So, it seems like you don't understand mens rea versus actus reus

paulddraper 3y ago

> Meanwhile, companies who do some real evil stuff get off scot-free because no one had the moral thought to have their doubts in writing. No, belief or doubts has absolutely nothing to do with whether you committed a crime or not. It has to do with whether it was with malice/intention.

nightowl_games 3y ago
Your speaking with too much absolutism. It doesn't matter whether you committed a crime or not, it matters if you can be convicted. That distinction illuminates the ambiguity and uncertainty that is it inherent in the justice system.
lazide 3y ago
Intent is a required element in many crimes (mens rea), and proving so is often hard. Unless someone writes one of these emails, like they noted. Fraud, for instance. Or murder vs manslaughter vs ‘an accident’. Smoking gun emails can totally sink a case or get people convicted.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Intent is relevant to the severity. Murder is a crime, manslaughter is a crime. Criminal fraud requires intent, civil fraud does not. Lacking intent does not make it "scot-free."
  - lazide 3y ago
    The difference between murder, manslaughter, an accident, or even justifiable homicide is exactly one of intent/knowledge. 2 of those 4 are crimes. 2 are not. Criminal fraud and civil fraud both require knowledge (or a reasonable belief that it was likely) that one was lying - which is intent, if one moves forward. Thinking you are telling the truth (actually!) means no fraud. There are many crimes that do not exist without intent. There are also many crimes that exist regardless of intent, like possession of controlled substances, statutory rape, etc. Now damn near anything can be a tort of course, but while those can produce large damages in a civil suit - they aren’t crimes per se. You’d need a criminal violation for that.
pixl97 3y ago
So, it seems like you don't understand mens rea versus actus reus