yallpendantools

13 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by yallpendantools 4y ago

   Your analogy uses loaded terms (co- conspirator ) and makes use of biased character portrayals (alone by a sketchy bridge at 2AM, don't wear a wire). Even in this case, unless the court issued an order that forbids physical meet-up&#x2
2. 152.▲
   by yallpendantools 4y ago

   But in this case, an "irrelevant topic" can range from something exclusively Google's business (like details of a new product) to something uber-mundane or even personal. So, really, unless the legal hold on Google is a blank
3. 153.▲
   by yallpendantools 4y ago

   But how can you say the conversation that happened off-record does pertain to the matter at hand? How can you preserve something that was not created in the first place?
4. 154.▲
   by yallpendantools 4y ago

   > Turning history off when you are under a retention order is likely to be equivalent to destroying records, in the eyes of a judge. > "routinely opted to move from history-on rooms to history-off Chats to hold sensitive convers
5. 155.▲
   by yallpendantools 4y ago

   Maybe don't present a problem as "American" when the problem is global? The problem is not so much that America manufactures poverty as much as that the consumerist(/capitalist) economic system the majority of the world
6. 156.▲
   by yallpendantools 4y ago

   I agree with you but unfortunately beggars can't be choosers. America speaking English, strength of the USD, all contribute to making the US the most attractive (if not the only) option. When you're poor and just taking chances, y