6 ms·

That's interesting, but how is that any different at all from discussing a topic in person in which it is immediately discarded so long as it is not recorded? S

That's interesting, but how is that any different at all from discussing a topic in person in which it is immediately discarded so long as it is not recorded? Seems identical and it should not be considered concealment in any way, even if it's for "sensitive" meetings, as they could have just as easily been done in person verbally with no recordings. This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended.

airspresso 2y ago
Doing potentially illegal business verbally with no written trail is a well-known strategy. It is still concealment if those participating do not tell when interrogated. Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.
- ameister14 2y ago
  >Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information. No. When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, which is more than just knowing litigation is possible, that's when they need to avoid destroying information relating to the litigation. Examples of situations that fit are: 1. when they know a suit has been filed 2. when the company is contemplating litigation - i.e. when they have asked for a legal opinion, started doing some groundwork, looked into feasibility of suit etc.
  - ang_cire 2y ago
    Another example is when the government already told you to begin retaining evidence, which is what happened in 2019, but Google ignored that.
fyrn_ 2y ago
> after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or It's different because the law covers recorded information, and the law cares about provable intent. Worth pointing out that this law is old with a lot of modern intepretations be wary of treating this literal text as the only substance of it
- nox101 2y ago
  So basically all phone calls and video calls. They are recorded, then transmitted digitally, then played back. The fact that they don't get saved is a tiny technicality
  - williamcotton 2y ago
    You’ll find that the words “knowingly” and “intent” are rather important in both statue and case law. The law doesn’t operate in some kind of “gotcha” or “this one trick” manner. Judges can see through this crap relatively easily.
    - nox101 2y ago
      what crap is that? Chat online is a simulation of chat in the real world. real world chat is not recorded.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - marshray 2y ago
        Chat online is communications in the real world. The main questions are around who is obligated to retain the messages and for how long.
        2y ago
cogman10 2y ago
> This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended. This is a well established part of legal practices government or otherwise. If you sue someone or something civility you are entitled to read all documents they have on the matter in discovery. This isn't the government being nosey, it's part of law to ensure justice is done. If you claim "we aren't doing x" your position is strengthened if all you docs say "we don't do X" it is only weakened if you docs say "we are definitely doing x". It also cuts both ways. You get to get the documents from the litigant related to the topic at hand. If that have docs that say "we are only suing to shut them up" that can look really bad at trial. Discovery is there so there isn't surprises at trial. Everyone gets to know what everyone has do they can plan out the best legal theories for themselves. It would actually be unfair otherwise. Consider, for example, if the government sued Google for X, but they had documents in their possession that said "Google did not do X". That unfairly puts Google at a disadvantage and calls into question why the prosecution happened in the first place.
- codedokode 2y ago
  Anything you have written can be used against you. So basically the more documents and evidence you store the worse your position is.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Simply not true. Like I get that you are echoing the (good) advice to never talk to police, but contemporaneous notes can save your bacon if you are acting in good faith. There's a reason former lawyers tend to meticulously note take at meetings. Particularly if you aren't in a decision making position, taking notes is a CYA move, especially if you think the company is doing something potentially shady. Why do you think every business issues receipts and invoices? It's not a tax thing, it's a legal thing. These little pieces of paper can cover the business's ass if you later claim they overcharged for a service not performed or good not delivered.

airspresso 2y ago

Doing potentially illegal business verbally with no written trail is a well-known strategy. It is still concealment if those participating do not tell when interrogated. Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.

ameister14 2y ago
>Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information. No. When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, which is more than just knowing litigation is possible, that's when they need to avoid destroying information relating to the litigation. Examples of situations that fit are: 1. when they know a suit has been filed 2. when the company is contemplating litigation - i.e. when they have asked for a legal opinion, started doing some groundwork, looked into feasibility of suit etc.
- ang_cire 2y ago
  Another example is when the government already told you to begin retaining evidence, which is what happened in 2019, but Google ignored that.

fyrn_ 2y ago

> after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or It's different because the law covers recorded information, and the law cares about provable intent. Worth pointing out that this law is old with a lot of modern intepretations be wary of treating this literal text as the only substance of it

nox101 2y ago
So basically all phone calls and video calls. They are recorded, then transmitted digitally, then played back. The fact that they don't get saved is a tiny technicality
- williamcotton 2y ago
  You’ll find that the words “knowingly” and “intent” are rather important in both statue and case law. The law doesn’t operate in some kind of “gotcha” or “this one trick” manner. Judges can see through this crap relatively easily.
  - nox101 2y ago
    what crap is that? Chat online is a simulation of chat in the real world. real world chat is not recorded.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - marshray 2y ago
      Chat online is communications in the real world. The main questions are around who is obligated to retain the messages and for how long.
      - 2y ago

cogman10 2y ago

> This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended. This is a well established part of legal practices government or otherwise. If you sue someone or something civility you are entitled to read all documents they have on the matter in discovery. This isn't the government being nosey, it's part of law to ensure justice is done. If you claim "we aren't doing x" your position is strengthened if all you docs say "we don't do X" it is only weakened if you docs say "we are definitely doing x". It also cuts both ways. You get to get the documents from the litigant related to the topic at hand. If that have docs that say "we are only suing to shut them up" that can look really bad at trial. Discovery is there so there isn't surprises at trial. Everyone gets to know what everyone has do they can plan out the best legal theories for themselves. It would actually be unfair otherwise. Consider, for example, if the government sued Google for X, but they had documents in their possession that said "Google did not do X". That unfairly puts Google at a disadvantage and calls into question why the prosecution happened in the first place.

codedokode 2y ago
Anything you have written can be used against you. So basically the more documents and evidence you store the worse your position is.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Simply not true. Like I get that you are echoing the (good) advice to never talk to police, but contemporaneous notes can save your bacon if you are acting in good faith. There's a reason former lawyers tend to meticulously note take at meetings. Particularly if you aren't in a decision making position, taking notes is a CYA move, especially if you think the company is doing something potentially shady. Why do you think every business issues receipts and invoices? It's not a tax thing, it's a legal thing. These little pieces of paper can cover the business's ass if you later claim they overcharged for a service not performed or good not delivered.