5 ms·

This is not two citizens having a private conversation. These are actions and conversations taken on behalf of a corporation. Corporations are given tons of pri

This is not two citizens having a private conversation. These are actions and conversations taken on behalf of a corporation. Corporations are given tons of privileges, but in exchange they have additional responsibilities that individuals do not have. If employees cause the company to violate those responsibilities the employees are generally not held directly responsible (unless they were directly violating a law). It’s the company itself who is held liable for the actions of its employees in this case.

elevatedastalt 2y ago
Yes but companies are not expected to record all audio conversations going on in their offices, or to put recorders on their employees. In the era of remote work it's common to have ephemeral conversations through text, which are no different from employees chatting at the watercooler. Employees and execs should be free to have those conversations through ephemeral apps. There is no obligation on any company to deliberately create paper trails of everyday conversations b/w employees.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > There is no obligation on any company to deliberately create paper trails of everyday conversations b/w employees. You know, those everyday conversations around the water-cooler about how we're going to respond to a DOJ anti-trust lawsuit...
  - 8note 2y ago
    That certainly sounds like a conversation that should be protected so that the trial can function properly
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      It's funny how water cooler conversations always involve at least one member of the legal team.
pylua 2y ago
The employees are probably very naive about the laws. The company needs their legal team to clearly explain the laws and recommend sufficient compliance actions to be taken by the employees.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  This is the crux of it - the FTC says Amazon didn't say or enforce anything around compliance re an investigation for fifteen months.
mindslight 2y ago
It seems like we'd be better off eliminating some of those privileges and otherwise generally constraining the overall behavior of corporations, rather than scrutinizing the individuals comprising the corporations while otherwise assuming the emergent results are otherwise desirable by construction.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
You're providing a distinction without a difference. You'd have to know what the conversation is about in order to know if it's about company business. Which you don't if individuals have private communications, so you'd still have to prohibit "two citizens having a private conversation" in order to enforce your rule. I also question your premise, which a lot of people state without evidence: > Corporations are given tons of privileges Name something relevant the law allows a corporation to do but not an individual.
- voxic11 2y ago
  There are some licenses that can only be held by corporations and not individuals (look at the state regulated insurance licenses for specific examples). But I agree that for the most part corporations and individuals have similar rights.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    It's also unclear why that would be a relevant example. The case is not rooted in Amazon operating an insurance business or violating insurance regulations, is it?

elevatedastalt 2y ago

Yes but companies are not expected to record all audio conversations going on in their offices, or to put recorders on their employees. In the era of remote work it's common to have ephemeral conversations through text, which are no different from employees chatting at the watercooler. Employees and execs should be free to have those conversations through ephemeral apps. There is no obligation on any company to deliberately create paper trails of everyday conversations b/w employees.

ethbr1 2y ago
> There is no obligation on any company to deliberately create paper trails of everyday conversations b/w employees. You know, those everyday conversations around the water-cooler about how we're going to respond to a DOJ anti-trust lawsuit...
- 8note 2y ago
  That certainly sounds like a conversation that should be protected so that the trial can function properly
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It's funny how water cooler conversations always involve at least one member of the legal team.

pylua 2y ago

The employees are probably very naive about the laws. The company needs their legal team to clearly explain the laws and recommend sufficient compliance actions to be taken by the employees.

FireBeyond 2y ago
This is the crux of it - the FTC says Amazon didn't say or enforce anything around compliance re an investigation for fifteen months.

mindslight 2y ago

It seems like we'd be better off eliminating some of those privileges and otherwise generally constraining the overall behavior of corporations, rather than scrutinizing the individuals comprising the corporations while otherwise assuming the emergent results are otherwise desirable by construction.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

You're providing a distinction without a difference. You'd have to know what the conversation is about in order to know if it's about company business. Which you don't if individuals have private communications, so you'd still have to prohibit "two citizens having a private conversation" in order to enforce your rule. I also question your premise, which a lot of people state without evidence: > Corporations are given tons of privileges Name something relevant the law allows a corporation to do but not an individual.

voxic11 2y ago
There are some licenses that can only be held by corporations and not individuals (look at the state regulated insurance licenses for specific examples). But I agree that for the most part corporations and individuals have similar rights.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  It's also unclear why that would be a relevant example. The case is not rooted in Amazon operating an insurance business or violating insurance regulations, is it?