3 ms·
Or “regulators don't understand the technology; short of turning it off entirely, there's nothing we can do to prevent it entirely, and the costs involved in at
by cwillu 9mo ago
Or “regulators don't understand the technology; short of turning it off entirely, there's nothing we can do to prevent it entirely, and the costs involved in attempting to reduce it are much greater than the likely fine, especially given that we're likely to receive such a fine anyway.”
- pirates 9mo agoThey could shut it off out of a sense of decency and respect, wtf kind of defense is this?
- cwillu 9mo agoYou appear to have lost the thread (or maybe you're replying to things directly from the newcomments feed? If so, please stop it.), we're talking about what sort of incriminating written statements the raid might hope to discover.
- bawolff 9mo agoWouldn't surprise me, but they would have to be very incompetent to say that outside of attorney-client privledge convo. Otoh it is musk.
- cwillu 9mo ago“For certain tax and criminal investigations, French law operates a distinction between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. While litigation privilege is always protected, legal advice privilege is not protected when (i) the investigation pertains to tax fraud, corruption, influence peddling, terrorism financing and money laundering offenses, and (ii) the legal opinions, correspondence or exhibits that are in possession of, or were communicated by, the lawyer or the client were used for committing or facilitating the commission of said offenses. This exception applies to materials that were not prepared in the context of a litigation proceeding and is strictly controlled; a judge makes the final determination as to which materials can be disclosed.” Seems like it's not a literal get-out-of-jail-free in france.