6 ms·

To those arguing about the semantics of deletion vs. never having saved it in the first place, do you believe the DOJ would make this claim without having consi

by ken47 2y ago

To those arguing about the semantics of deletion vs. never having saved it in the first place, do you believe the DOJ would make this claim without having considered such trivialities?

cornel_io 2y ago
Yes. The DOJ sometimes (if not often) overreaches because they are taking a shot. These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories. Flipping this around, do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities?
- ken47 2y ago
  > do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities? Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is. Competent people will make surprising decisions under pressure.
  - cornel_io 2y ago
    Google has great lawyers. They don't flinch or buckle.
  - bdd8f1df777b 2y ago
    > Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is. That's the same for DoJ. In fact, for them it's all wins and no loses. In the worst case their argument just doesn't stick.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities? Well, I would expect Google's legal time to advise employees not to do anything illegal, yet here we are.
- ameister14 2y ago
  >These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories. There is already a lot of precedent around policies related to spoliation which is why it would be a surprise to me if Google's legal team actually did advise employees to do this as a blanket policy. It seems more likely that they said they could do it for things that are not potentially relevant to litigation and the execs took it as far as they wanted to go.
px43 2y ago
The DOJ will make whatever claim they feel like to extend their surveillance apparatus as far and wide as possible.
lazide 2y ago
DOJ is a political organization - of course they will selectively prosecute and weigh risks based off intended political impacts.

by ken47 2y ago

To those arguing about the semantics of deletion vs. never having saved it in the first place, do you believe the DOJ would make this claim without having considered such trivialities?

cornel_io 2y ago

Yes. The DOJ sometimes (if not often) overreaches because they are taking a shot. These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories. Flipping this around, do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities?

ken47 2y ago
> do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities? Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is. Competent people will make surprising decisions under pressure.
- cornel_io 2y ago
  Google has great lawyers. They don't flinch or buckle.
- bdd8f1df777b 2y ago
  > Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is. That's the same for DoJ. In fact, for them it's all wins and no loses. In the worst case their argument just doesn't stick.
pyrale 2y ago
> do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities? Well, I would expect Google's legal time to advise employees not to do anything illegal, yet here we are.
ameister14 2y ago
>These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories. There is already a lot of precedent around policies related to spoliation which is why it would be a surprise to me if Google's legal team actually did advise employees to do this as a blanket policy. It seems more likely that they said they could do it for things that are not potentially relevant to litigation and the execs took it as far as they wanted to go.

px43 2y ago

The DOJ will make whatever claim they feel like to extend their surveillance apparatus as far and wide as possible.

lazide 2y ago

DOJ is a political organization - of course they will selectively prosecute and weigh risks based off intended political impacts.