16 ms·

I'm calling it now: the counter will be law to require businesses to store all electronic conversations for a period of X years. Failure to do so will lead to a

I'm calling it now: the counter will be law to require businesses to store all electronic conversations for a period of X years. Failure to do so will lead to a charge of hiding or destroying evidence. Which, mind you, I'm not totally against. Sure, Cuban may have good intentions with this, but really he's just making it easier for unethical people to be even more unethical.

_______-_______ 12y ago
This is already true in certain areas of the public sector. Florida, for instance, has broad public records laws. Since any written communication with a government employee about government business must be archived, the institution I was formerly affiliated with couldn't implement IM unless we enabled archiving for every IM conversation (probably not all conversation were subject to the rule, so you err on the side of caution and record them all).
- npsimons 12y ago
  See Sarbanes-Oxley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act
staunch 12y ago
Helping people maintain their privacy is "just making it easier for unethical people to be even more unethical"? The idea that privacy is too dangerous for people to have is cynical. Passing laws to prevent privacy would be the worst kind of tyranny. Thankfully any practical attempt would be unconstitutional in the US.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >Helping people maintain their privacy Businesses aren't people.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Businesses don't have conversations, people do.
    - gnaritas 12y ago
      Not the guy you're talking to, but... if people doing business can hide behind the limited liability said business provides then it's fair to separate private communication from business communication and possibly declare that limited liability doesn't come without loss of privacy to ensure the law is being followed for business communications. It's unfair to use personal privacy rights to try and hide illegal business activity thus absolving any actual person from being responsible while also allowing them the limited liability of a corporation so if any wrongdoing becomes known no one can be blamed.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - rodgerd 12y ago
      When people do awful things in a business context they say "it's just business." Can't turn around and say, "at work this is my personal communication."
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        That's a business interacting with the outside world. That is a business having a conversation, and should probably be recorded. Internally it's people and they should be able to have some privacy.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
kjs3 12y ago
If you're in a large number of regulated industries, this is already a requirement (see: SOX).
fleitz 12y ago
He's also enabling ethical people to protect themselves from unethical people who will take messages out of context to construe them as something else.

_______-_______ 12y ago

This is already true in certain areas of the public sector. Florida, for instance, has broad public records laws. Since any written communication with a government employee about government business must be archived, the institution I was formerly affiliated with couldn't implement IM unless we enabled archiving for every IM conversation (probably not all conversation were subject to the rule, so you err on the side of caution and record them all).

npsimons 12y ago
See Sarbanes-Oxley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

staunch 12y ago

Helping people maintain their privacy is "just making it easier for unethical people to be even more unethical"? The idea that privacy is too dangerous for people to have is cynical. Passing laws to prevent privacy would be the worst kind of tyranny. Thankfully any practical attempt would be unconstitutional in the US.

anon1385 12y ago
>Helping people maintain their privacy Businesses aren't people.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Businesses don't have conversations, people do.
  - gnaritas 12y ago
    Not the guy you're talking to, but... if people doing business can hide behind the limited liability said business provides then it's fair to separate private communication from business communication and possibly declare that limited liability doesn't come without loss of privacy to ensure the law is being followed for business communications. It's unfair to use personal privacy rights to try and hide illegal business activity thus absolving any actual person from being responsible while also allowing them the limited liability of a corporation so if any wrongdoing becomes known no one can be blamed.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    When people do awful things in a business context they say "it's just business." Can't turn around and say, "at work this is my personal communication."
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      That's a business interacting with the outside world. That is a business having a conversation, and should probably be recorded. Internally it's people and they should be able to have some privacy.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

kjs3 12y ago

If you're in a large number of regulated industries, this is already a requirement (see: SOX).

fleitz 12y ago

He's also enabling ethical people to protect themselves from unethical people who will take messages out of context to construe them as something else.