3 ms·
>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not. It absolutely is. If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produ
by stackghost 8mo ago
>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.
It absolutely is.
If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?
- gildenFish 8mo agoIt is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory. Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.
- stackghost 8mo agoThat doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation. Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?
- caminante 8mo agoI'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios: (1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict (2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it and the parent using either to claim lack of > some admission of wrongdoing The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.