3 ms·

OP is specifically comparing voice to text. So it has absolutely nothing to do with being publicly traded. In fact the FTC can investigate fully private compani

OP is specifically comparing voice to text. So it has absolutely nothing to do with being publicly traded. In fact the FTC can investigate fully private companies too. Publicly traded or not, companies aren't expected to record all voice conversations done by their employees and retain those recordings for future court cases. That's the double-standard that OP is pointing out. There seems to be an expectation that text chat should be recorded and persisted and audio not. This is a vestige of an old era when text was for more "formal" or serious conversation and chat for informal. Today with IM-ing and remote work text can be as ephemeral as voice.

ProfessorLayton 2y ago
That’s because there is a double standard when it comes to speaking vs writing things down. When a boss tells you to do something dubious within an organization is completely different than when they write that same thing down in a traceable manner. If it’s not in writing everything devolves into your-word-vs-mine, and the top chain of command quickly washes its hands from any blame. As the saying goes: “Get it in writing”
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  Yes, but technology lets us have ephemeral conversations, which are meant to replicate the temporariness of verbal conversations. That's what the "disappearing" messages of Signal are. And that's what the FTC claim is about. It's okay for text intended to be permanent to be held to the standard of permanent text. But creating an expectation that text that is fundamentally intended to be ephemeral should be treated as permanent text does not sound reasonable.
  - salawat 2y ago
    The problem is that the ephemeralitt of a chat between two peers requires physical colocation. The regulations on message retention kicked in when we started leveraging networks to increase the distance across which these messages could propagate. The "crime" is not the chatting. It's using the wires to do it. The danger is the utilization of network infrastructure to facilitate criminal activity. Or at least that seems to be my view of things.
    - wcunning 2y ago
      But it also doesn't apply to voice calls or even multi-party meetings held over something like Teams despite the ability to record or even auto transcribe them.
      - saulrh 2y ago
        I bet that it does apply to transcripts of meetings. This means, of course, that people with hearing or memory problems will be locked out of leadership because the company can't take the risk that accessibility tooling increases their exposure to discovery. Which is what makes me angriest about this double standard - text is a critical accessibility feature for many people.
        wcunning 2y ago
        I mean that you're not required to archive a transcript of every meeting if you weren't already planning on creating the transcript in the first place. Once it's created, agreed, I would expect it to become a business record akin to meeting minutes of board meetings.
        salawat 2y ago
        >This means, of course, that people with hearing or memory problems will be locked out of leadership Americans with Disabilities Act says "Hi". Lock someone out of a position solely on the basis of avoiding a reasonable accommodation for the sake of avoiding creation of a business record to do skulduggerous things, and you've just handed someone a sizable cause of action against you. Seriously, just stop trying to do illegal shit and get away with it and accept that sometimes the way through actually includes changing the rules first, or that any business model that requires you to do something illegal that can only be mitigate by getting away with it long enough to create an issue after scaling should probably be DOA for a reason you haven't bothered to read up on yet. I know... I know... Read the room. Totally not HN's bag. Get a load of this square, so on, and so forth. I've done my stint in startups. I've seen the harms they can cause. I've been on the receiving end of the industry's lack of care long enough to realize that these regulations exist for a reason. Part of it is to create generous hooks whereby the legal system can actually introspect what you're up to while you're enjoying the benefits of government granted legal fictions. A good enterprise doesn't need crime. Simple as.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  But chat isn’t that kind of writing so the theory goes. Let’s consider another hypothetical: if a deaf employee uses teletext to communicate, are they held to a different standard legally than a non-deaf employee? Or do you mean they should learn sign language to enjoy full privacy rights that everyone else has?
Retric 2y ago
Destroying evidence is already illegal, so it’s a consistent standard rather than a double standard. Essentially removing the question of whether someone should have considered something as potential evidence before destroying it.
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  _Destroying_ evidence is illegal, yes. _Not creating more incriminatory evidence_ is not illegal.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Not creating records can be illegal. Creating unnecessary and incriminating records comes down to your own incompetence.

ProfessorLayton 2y ago

That’s because there is a double standard when it comes to speaking vs writing things down. When a boss tells you to do something dubious within an organization is completely different than when they write that same thing down in a traceable manner. If it’s not in writing everything devolves into your-word-vs-mine, and the top chain of command quickly washes its hands from any blame. As the saying goes: “Get it in writing”

elevatedastalt 2y ago
Yes, but technology lets us have ephemeral conversations, which are meant to replicate the temporariness of verbal conversations. That's what the "disappearing" messages of Signal are. And that's what the FTC claim is about. It's okay for text intended to be permanent to be held to the standard of permanent text. But creating an expectation that text that is fundamentally intended to be ephemeral should be treated as permanent text does not sound reasonable.
- salawat 2y ago
  The problem is that the ephemeralitt of a chat between two peers requires physical colocation. The regulations on message retention kicked in when we started leveraging networks to increase the distance across which these messages could propagate. The "crime" is not the chatting. It's using the wires to do it. The danger is the utilization of network infrastructure to facilitate criminal activity. Or at least that seems to be my view of things.
  - wcunning 2y ago
    But it also doesn't apply to voice calls or even multi-party meetings held over something like Teams despite the ability to record or even auto transcribe them.
    - saulrh 2y ago
      I bet that it does apply to transcripts of meetings. This means, of course, that people with hearing or memory problems will be locked out of leadership because the company can't take the risk that accessibility tooling increases their exposure to discovery. Which is what makes me angriest about this double standard - text is a critical accessibility feature for many people.
      - wcunning 2y ago
        I mean that you're not required to archive a transcript of every meeting if you weren't already planning on creating the transcript in the first place. Once it's created, agreed, I would expect it to become a business record akin to meeting minutes of board meetings.
      - salawat 2y ago
        >This means, of course, that people with hearing or memory problems will be locked out of leadership Americans with Disabilities Act says "Hi". Lock someone out of a position solely on the basis of avoiding a reasonable accommodation for the sake of avoiding creation of a business record to do skulduggerous things, and you've just handed someone a sizable cause of action against you. Seriously, just stop trying to do illegal shit and get away with it and accept that sometimes the way through actually includes changing the rules first, or that any business model that requires you to do something illegal that can only be mitigate by getting away with it long enough to create an issue after scaling should probably be DOA for a reason you haven't bothered to read up on yet. I know... I know... Read the room. Totally not HN's bag. Get a load of this square, so on, and so forth. I've done my stint in startups. I've seen the harms they can cause. I've been on the receiving end of the industry's lack of care long enough to realize that these regulations exist for a reason. Part of it is to create generous hooks whereby the legal system can actually introspect what you're up to while you're enjoying the benefits of government granted legal fictions. A good enterprise doesn't need crime. Simple as.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
But chat isn’t that kind of writing so the theory goes. Let’s consider another hypothetical: if a deaf employee uses teletext to communicate, are they held to a different standard legally than a non-deaf employee? Or do you mean they should learn sign language to enjoy full privacy rights that everyone else has?

Retric 2y ago

Destroying evidence is already illegal, so it’s a consistent standard rather than a double standard. Essentially removing the question of whether someone should have considered something as potential evidence before destroying it.

elevatedastalt 2y ago
_Destroying_ evidence is illegal, yes. _Not creating more incriminatory evidence_ is not illegal.
- Retric 2y ago
  Not creating records can be illegal. Creating unnecessary and incriminating records comes down to your own incompetence.