91–100 of 128 posts
It's a useful reminder not to pay attention to legal commentary from HN, most of the comments were saying that Google did nothing wrong w.r.t. these messages.
Ah, the stodgy old "only ever discuss things with experts" advice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a group to join to enable history by default.
It still has a timeout, just a longer one, and there's some caveat about the other side sending first that I forget. The only solid solution is to discuss everything in a space instead of a regular group/1:1 chat.
It's a useful reminder not to pay attention to legal commentary from HN, most of the comments were saying that Google did nothing wrong w.r.t. these messages.
> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just gla…
I wonder how corporations are going to adapt to a world where more and more meetings are transcribed and summarized by language models. Adopting that technology, while it's a productivity boost, will expose companies to vastly greater amounts of liability. There are a lot of comments that can get made off-hand in a meeting that would never make it into chat, let alone an email.
It's a useful reminder not to pay attention to legal commentary from HN, most of the comments were saying that Google did nothing wrong w.r.t. these messages.
To be fair nearly all those comments gave arguments about what the law ought be, not about what it actually was. Those two things shouldn't be confused regardless of who is arguing them.
Crazy, it's an order of magnitude more than I'd guess.
> Lim testified that the thought process that he might need to save something that was said because he was subject to a legal hold simply “doesn’t occur because, as I said, I’m under so many legal holds, it’s impossible to think that way.”
This is also a crazy thing to say. But I guess I misunderstand something here, just before that it says that he did try to save _something_ copying it into docs etc and the problem is that he wasn't saving _everything_.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how corporations are going to adapt to a world where more and more meetings are transcribed and summarized by language models. Adopting that technology, while it's a productivity boost, will expose companies to vastly greater amounts of liability. There are a lot of comments that can get made off-hand in a meeting that would never make it into chat, let alone an email.
Just do what my company does, and delete all Teams chats in 24 hours! So secure! So protective! So useful, when you need to refer to what was told you last week, before you understood you needed it.
> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just gla…
Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.
Here is the DOJ accusing Google of that exactly, a year ago, related to the same case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely...
The disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too.
"The disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too." This disappearing chat messages are a pain in the ass for employees, but they were a pain in the ass for employees too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how corporations are going to adapt to a world where more and more meetings are transcribed and summarized by language models. Adopting that technology, while it's a productivity boost, will expose companies to vastly greater amounts of liability. There are a lot of comments that can get made off-hand in a meeting that would never make it into chat, let alone an email.
Just do what my company does, and delete all Teams chats in 24 hours! So secure! So protective! So useful, when you need to refer to what was told you last week, before you understood you needed it.