3 ms·

What Google does makes sense. If I were running a company I would also prefer to auto-delete internal communications not to leave any traces. It is stupid to co

What Google does makes sense. If I were running a company I would also prefer to auto-delete internal communications not to leave any traces. It is stupid to collect data that will be used against you. It actually surprises me that there are companies who preserve evidence against them even when not required by law. And by the way, Telegram chats can auto-delete messages.

echoangle 2y ago
The problem is that they might have been required by law to keep the data
- codedokode 2y ago
  If "keep the data" means "keep exsiting data" then disabling logging for new conversations seems ok. > the DOJ believed the court should "conclude that communicating with history off shows anti-competitive intent to hide information because they knew they were violating antitrust law." This is too arbitrary. It is like saying that everyone who uses secret chats and auto-deleted photos in Telegram is a criminal trying to hide the evidence.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > If "keep the data" means "keep exsiting data" then disabling logging for new conversations seems ok. Google has two modes of conversation history retention. The first, the default, is "delete after 24h". The second, which is opt-in only, and apparently extremely rarely used, is "delete after 30d". Google attempted to be too tricky for the court. They decided that when place on legal hold, they'd continue to retain the opt-in messages only, and continue to delete the 24h retention messages, which is not what they were told to do. And then, because they thought they could get away with it, on dozens of occasions they told the DOJ and the courts that they were holding and retaining all message history... (except the 99% they were still deleting).
GauntletWizard 2y ago
It's stupid that these communications are such a liability. Most corporations make the same comments, but so long as they're over video chat or telephone they're inadmissible. The same over text is somehow admissable, and read without any context. It's like that old joke about a bad read in court - "Your honor, the witness said 'no, don't, stop'" "She didn't say it that way!"

echoangle 2y ago

The problem is that they might have been required by law to keep the data

codedokode 2y ago
If "keep the data" means "keep exsiting data" then disabling logging for new conversations seems ok. > the DOJ believed the court should "conclude that communicating with history off shows anti-competitive intent to hide information because they knew they were violating antitrust law." This is too arbitrary. It is like saying that everyone who uses secret chats and auto-deleted photos in Telegram is a criminal trying to hide the evidence.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > If "keep the data" means "keep exsiting data" then disabling logging for new conversations seems ok. Google has two modes of conversation history retention. The first, the default, is "delete after 24h". The second, which is opt-in only, and apparently extremely rarely used, is "delete after 30d". Google attempted to be too tricky for the court. They decided that when place on legal hold, they'd continue to retain the opt-in messages only, and continue to delete the 24h retention messages, which is not what they were told to do. And then, because they thought they could get away with it, on dozens of occasions they told the DOJ and the courts that they were holding and retaining all message history... (except the 99% they were still deleting).

GauntletWizard 2y ago

It's stupid that these communications are such a liability. Most corporations make the same comments, but so long as they're over video chat or telephone they're inadmissible. The same over text is somehow admissable, and read without any context. It's like that old joke about a bad read in court - "Your honor, the witness said 'no, don't, stop'" "She didn't say it that way!"