Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#121

Post by mcv » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 9:45 AM UTC

euroderf wrote: post #117

alach11 wrote: post #89

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.

If you ask your LLM for legal advice - based strictly on a reading of what it was trained with - will this be considered privileged communications ?

Maybe if it passed the bar exam?

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#122

Post by alach11 » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

revelio wrote: post #119

alach11 wrote: post #89

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.

If you read the judgement, the judge doesn't really see any distinction between "can technically record" and "must record", with only financial burdens being accepted as a justification for not doing so. The reasoning goes, because Chat could be recorded, it should have been because it's electronic communication. But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that,…

I agree with all your analysis here. This judgement has far reaching consequences. It's reminiscent of discussions around MGM using automated facial recognition to ban people from venues. Our legal framework was set up with an implicit assumption that identifying people and banning them from a business is hard to scale. As soon as you can do it en-masse for thousands of employees of a rival business, the calculus might need to change.

Similarly, our legal framework around the retention of corporate communications was originally framed around only official (and relatively uncommon) communications like memos being on the record. Then email. Now chat. Soon all meetings and phone calls? Each step here is a major step-change that requires careful consideration!

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#123

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 3:29 PM UTC

soco wrote: post #116

AlbertCory wrote: post #41

> 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…

And how is that "off the record" supposed to work anyway? Once you said the phrase, the chat automagically stops sending the texts, or they autodestroy or something? And people get their memories erased like in MIB? Because this looks more like a detective movie scene and less like all day reality.

after a day, it's deleted off the servers.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#124

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 3:34 PM UTC

revelio wrote: post #119

alach11 wrote: post #89

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.

If you read the judgement, the judge doesn't really see any distinction between "can technically record" and "must record", with only financial burdens being accepted as a justification for not doing so. The reasoning goes, because Chat could be recorded, it should have been because it's electronic communication. But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that,…

Ah, you're expecting the law to make sense?

Telephone conversations, or the conversation in a meeting, are not "expected" to be recorded. Yes, they could be, but they're not, so it doesn't matter. Your logical extensions are kinda irrelevant.

A chat is recorded, on the server. It isn't deleted after people receive it. Google, and lots of companies, interpret "off the record" to mean that it's deleted after a period.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#125

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

euroderf wrote: post #117

alach11 wrote: post #89

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.

If you ask your LLM for legal advice - based strictly on a reading of what it was trained with - will this be considered privileged communications ?

No. You can ask me for legal advice, but since I haven't been admitted to the bar, it will not be privileged.

(In any case, I'd refuse to answer, since that would be "practicing law without a license.")

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#126

Post by infamouscow » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 7:15 PM UTC

sgent wrote: post #114

midoridensha wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company can just delete them anyway, per their policy. What's the court going to do about it? Jail someone? When has a court ever jailed someone in a big corporation for contempt of court?

The court can find the company (Google) liable, or direct the Jury to consider any hidden evidence would be adverse to Google. If Google loses a (civil) antitrust case to 38 attorney generals it will cost them 100's of billions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37 (A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6)…

Just because something can happen doesn't have any relation to what's probable or likely. The question is when has a court ever jailed the officer of a big corporation for contempt of court.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#127

Post by singleshot_ » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 10:20 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #124

revelio wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the judgement, the judge doesn't really see any distinction between "can technically record" and "must record", with only financial burdens being accepted as a justification for not doing so. The reasoning goes, because Chat could be recorded, it should have been because it's electronic communication. But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that,…

Ah, you're expecting the law to make sense? Telephone conversations, or the conversation in a meeting, are not "expected" to be recorded. Yes, they could be, but they're not, so it doesn't matter. Your logical extensions are kinda irrelevant. A chat is recorded, on the server. It isn't deleted after people receive it. Google, and lots of companies, interpret "off the record" to mean that it's deleted after a period.

Citation for any of this?

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#128

Post by revelio » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 12:36 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #124

revelio wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the judgement, the judge doesn't really see any distinction between "can technically record" and "must record", with only financial burdens being accepted as a justification for not doing so. The reasoning goes, because Chat could be recorded, it should have been because it's electronic communication. But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that,…

Ah, you're expecting the law to make sense? Telephone conversations, or the conversation in a meeting, are not "expected" to be recorded. Yes, they could be, but they're not, so it doesn't matter. Your logical extensions are kinda irrelevant. A chat is recorded, on the server. It isn't deleted after people receive it. Google, and lots of companies, interpret "off the record" to mean that it's deleted after a period.

The law should make sense, and your argument is exactly the same as the one Google used with chats, there isn't any difference. It could easily be argued that phone calls are "recorded" by the VOIP systems.

Especially because off the record means there was no 24 hour retention period and the messages were never recorded to begin with. You're mixing up the default behaviour of "history on" (24 hour retention) with "history off" (no retention.