Never write something on internal chat that could end up in court or seen by grandma on the news.
If you want to have watercooler discussions, make a Session or Signal channel.
Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
101–110 of 128 posts
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#102The other thing is that if the judge or prosecutor puts tech on legal holds on particular people or departments, then all systems must be able to stop deletion.
Also, how does anyone get work done at Google if their chat continually erases itself?
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We didn't prosecute the CIA for destroying videotaped evidence of torture at numerous black sites, and promoted the woman who ordered it to CIA Director. Google will ultimately benefit from destroying evidence, which is why they did it.
I believe that the CIA should be disbanded as well, so it’s not as if the opinion I’m espousing is inconsistent.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just having a lawyer in the room doesn’t make the conversation privileged. It’s a conversation with the lawyer that is privileged, so they actually have to be a participant.
Uhh...it's also not privileged, if the lawyer is participating in the discussion about ongoing planning of criminal activity. http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu... > [The lawyer] Hagen is not only party to that decision but party to a detailed discussion of methods. He cannot pretend attorney-client privilege here either.
Also true, as the recent crime-fraud exception case demonstrated in one of the trump investigations this very month.
So it’s pretty narrow.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Getting yourself put on legal hold was also great for email/chat retention.
Not according to the OP.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#106> At any given time, Google has thousands of employees who are under a litigation hold for document preservation. 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 als…
I think he meant that he can't spend his whole life reviewing every document he touches against every legal hold he is under. And if it's so important, management should be automatically saving everything.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#107The other thing is that if the judge or prosecutor puts tech on legal holds on particular people or departments, then all systems must be able to stop deletion. Also, how does anyone get work done at Google if their chat continually erases itself?
How does anyone get work done if their spoken conversations are never recorded in the first place?
Using chat as a knowledge base is living in a spam swamp.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why does "Google" get tax benefits and not individuals?
Why do corporation pay taxes is a good question in the first place. The same income is taxed twice - at corporate level first, and then when dividends are paid out (or, in case of buybacks, when shareholders give back their shares to Google in exchange for the profit that was already taxed). From what I've seen at my very cursory look at taxation policy textbooks, the official policy is that taxes don't have to make…
Let's imagine that I, without acting as a business, took income for work and then paid other people to do the work. All of that income would get double taxed, not just the profit. Corporations get a huge tax benefit compared to individuals. Imagine if you could deduct cost of living from your income tax.
Also a lot of that money only gets taxed the second time as capital gains, so while it's taxed twice it's two very discount taxes.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Used past tense cause I quit (not cause of that), also cause after a while people got used to it and found workarounds.
It’s a Mitch Hedberg joke.
Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you This is why Alex Jones lost his civil actions: he was so intransigent about refusing to produce evidence that the judge determined he was guilty.
Also when his lawyer accidentally provided the evidence it showed he was guilty.
That was during the judgment (penalty?) phase. Jones had already been found guilty in a prior proceeding.