181–190 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Rules for thee, but not for me" may actually be the oldest trick in the book. Google's hypocrisy here is disappointing, but not surprising in the least.
Also, the CIA destroyed the torture video tapes to prevent embarrassment and further prosecutions of it's employees. So it kinda goes both ways.
Is the DoJ's argument that if you anticipate being sued in the future, you're not allowed to use private messaging at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What major enterprise customer uses Google as a chat service?
like nearly every google workspace customer? ive been in two 30k+ orgs to use this.. its no different than teams?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies can't get rid of chat tools anymore than previous bureaucracies could stop using paper. Operating at current scale requires digital communication. If they tried to cut that off, they'd discover that things stopped working. Twitter gave us an example of that just this week: https://www.platformer.news/p/new-cracks-emerge-in-elon-musk...
People can just voice/video call and write memos.
I mean, I grant the theoretical possibility. In the same way that they could in theory only meet in person. But I just provided you with a counterexample of that not actually happening. The reason people use things like Slack is because they're way more efficient than setting up meetings to discuss things.
So I think in the long term, a company like Google ruling out chat would be significantly handicapped vs their competitors in terms of information flow, response time, and ability to iterate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a horse in this race (anymore), but in the abstract I would love if government aligned incentives so that it was more painful for companies to toss records that should have been retained than to retain records that are damaging to them in hindsight, which they were legally allowed at some point to toss. For precisely the reason you indicated.
Just let the plaintiff or prosecuter decide what evidence they would have liked to find and instruct the jury to assume it was found. This would never happen again anywhere.
Funny how Google can ignore the privacy of internet users' conversations but when it comes to their employees' conversations, Google does not want to share those with the Government. According to the Government's memo supporting sanctions, Google is deleting conversations within 24h despite being under litigation holds. https://ia902501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22... Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt app…
It's because many kinds of lawsuits (not only the government's) can go into discovery and when you have 130k+ employees generating discoverable materials it becomes very costly to search and provide these for lawsuits. It's easier to set an auto-delete policy and attempt to avoid certain things from being available for it. You aren't necessarily trying to hid conversations. You are trying to reduce the amount of cont…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? I've seen so many people strategically play dumb that at this point I don't believe whether or not a violation was accidental should have any weight on the punishment. Nature doesn't care whether our immune systems accidentally slack off, or whether we accidentally didn't protect our cities from a…
It's very difficult to do this without introducing ThoughtCrime. The set of things that you could potentially have thought about doing is infinite. There's almost inevitably something in hindsight that you could have done to get the results that the prosecutor/plaintiff desired. The problem is that ordinary people without the benefit of hindsight fail to notice these options all the time, for all sorts of mundane rea…
Trying to look into someone's head is bad. That's what I'm saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What major enterprise customer uses Google as a chat service?
like nearly every google workspace customer? ive been in two 30k+ orgs to use this.. its no different than teams?
I'm sure there are other programs that various enterprises use, but I've never met one that uses Google's chat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a horse in this race (anymore), but in the abstract I would love if government aligned incentives so that it was more painful for companies to toss records that should have been retained than to retain records that are damaging to them in hindsight, which they were legally allowed at some point to toss. For precisely the reason you indicated.
Just let the plaintiff or prosecuter decide what evidence they would have liked to find and instruct the jury to assume it was found. This would never happen again anywhere.
We already have a form of that (and more). Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting a court, when finding intentional destruction of electronic evidence that should have been preserved, to presume, and/or instruct the jury to presume, that the evidence was adverse to the jury or to summarily dismiss the claim or enter a default judgement (depending on which side destroyed the evidence).
Literally, the court can decide “You destroyed evidence, you lose the case, game over”.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." ~Eric Schmidt lol