7 ms·

Facebook is inherently different because of the broadcast style of updates rather than targeted messaging. I don't think the intent of usage matters as much of

Facebook is inherently different because of the broadcast style of updates rather than targeted messaging. I don't think the intent of usage matters as much of the intent of the system. Facebook statuses are designed to be fairly public. > The purpose is to get the truth of the dispute, not prevent liability for people acting badly. Your purpose for not having courts see evidence of wrongdoing is so that what, things are better for the wrongdoers? If your argument is feasibility or removing the recording element at all, I'd understand, but the thing is already recorded. The purpose of not recording everything is to allow businesses (read: the people within them) to function efficiently without having to worry that anything and everything they say could be dragged into the record on a lawsuit. Also to encourage people to put problems on the record, paradoxically. I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question. I'm rapidly running out of ways to communicate that aren't on the record, which poses a communication problem for the business and inhibits dealing with problems that could lead to a lawsuit. In a world where chats aren't part of the eternal record, I can pop in and say "hey, such and such feature seems like it has a security/privacy risk, we should take a look at that". The communication is valuable, and the business is now aware of the problem. In a world with eternal chat records, nobody wants me to point that out unless we are ready to deal with it immediately. If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing". Everyone would prefer that I had said nothing, because the business' liability is diminished if they can say they were unaware of the problem. The underlying reality here is that business do not want their problems on public record, and will encourage their employees to communicate using non-recorded means or, failing that, to not communicate at all. It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about. Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent. Our legal system does not reward recording communications in the least, it actively penalizes doing so. We're trying to strong arm businesses into doing something against their own best interests, and I'm doubtful that's a productive line of action.

ameister14 2y ago
>I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question. Zoom? Phone calls? You choose to use a recorded form of communication, but there are options. That said, if your goal is to intentionally hide information from use in a future lawsuit, there are easier ways to decrease your business's liability that don't run the same risks. > If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing". You example about nobody wanting you to point this out because that creates liability is an error. The liability arguably already exists because the business should have known of the issue and did not. A policy of not reporting security issues because they fear lawsuits makes things much worse, making it potentially rise to recklessness. So you not telling the company about it on purpose, if that's a part of the culture of the company, is likely worse than you telling the company and having them make a reasonable assessment of risk and resource allocation. That's not "doing nothing" from a legal standpoint. Whether their decision was reasonable under the circumstances is one thing but it's usually not random people on the street evaluating this. By the way, this has nothing to do with chat. Why do you think many companies routinely do security evaluations? It's not because consumers care. If your example is true companies would do better to not have security at all. Finally with this, even if it were better for the company not to report it would be worse for you not to report. >Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent. Courts don't do that, though. Businesses decide to use recorded communication, much the same way they did when the law was created and distance was an issue. > It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about That's not necessarily true, but even if it is it wouldn't be preferable from a commerce standpoint. This isn't business in a legal vacuum.

ameister14 2y ago

>I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question. Zoom? Phone calls? You choose to use a recorded form of communication, but there are options. That said, if your goal is to intentionally hide information from use in a future lawsuit, there are easier ways to decrease your business's liability that don't run the same risks. > If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing". You example about nobody wanting you to point this out because that creates liability is an error. The liability arguably already exists because the business should have known of the issue and did not. A policy of not reporting security issues because they fear lawsuits makes things much worse, making it potentially rise to recklessness. So you not telling the company about it on purpose, if that's a part of the culture of the company, is likely worse than you telling the company and having them make a reasonable assessment of risk and resource allocation. That's not "doing nothing" from a legal standpoint. Whether their decision was reasonable under the circumstances is one thing but it's usually not random people on the street evaluating this. By the way, this has nothing to do with chat. Why do you think many companies routinely do security evaluations? It's not because consumers care. If your example is true companies would do better to not have security at all. Finally with this, even if it were better for the company not to report it would be worse for you not to report. >Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent. Courts don't do that, though. Businesses decide to use recorded communication, much the same way they did when the law was created and distance was an issue. > It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about That's not necessarily true, but even if it is it wouldn't be preferable from a commerce standpoint. This isn't business in a legal vacuum.