Relevant, from Matt Levine's Money stuff (regarding SEC recordkeeping rules, which are similar but not quite the same as litigation holds): > We have talked before about the SEC’s probe into how the employees of big banks discussed their work in text messages and chat apps like WhatsApp on their personal cell phones. The SEC has collected big fines from the biggest banks because, it has said, these chats violated the…
Mind linking the post you're quoting?
Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
51–60 of 402 posts
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why isn't [...] Was there a case against Google already that bans this or something? According to [1], "The DOJ maintains Google should have suspended its auto-delete practices by 2019, when it was clear litigation was coming." I found more details in [2] on the legal topic of evidence spoliation that might be interesting, though I'm not a lawyer and don't know what which law(s) are relevant in this case. > And cou…
> Yes, but there's presumably a difference between deleting evidence vs. not having it in the first place. In the article it seems Google's "history off" feature isn't really history-off so much as it simply auto-deletes after 24h. If the chats were never logged, would they have avoided this? Also how far does the law go regarding deletion - I mean if a message was stored in memory and then released/garbage collected…
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#53"Do NOT delete any emails. . Let me say that again to make sure everyone has understood me correctly: do NOT delete any emails!"
The way it was said, the chuckle, and the way it was repeated with the extra emphasis on NOT, sent a clear message: delete all such emails.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why isn't [...] Was there a case against Google already that bans this or something? According to [1], "The DOJ maintains Google should have suspended its auto-delete practices by 2019, when it was clear litigation was coming." I found more details in [2] on the legal topic of evidence spoliation that might be interesting, though I'm not a lawyer and don't know what which law(s) are relevant in this case. > And cou…
Thanks. The law is kind of silly. A chat system that doesn't store history is functionally equivalent to an unrecorded call, but I'm guessing they would not consider an unrecorded call destruction of evidence.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does record "history" - if it didn't, the recipient would see it appear and then immediately vanish in the next refresh of the screen, which is not the case. The thing is, it only keeps the history for a short period of time (hours/days). That's not the same thing as an unrecorded call, which isn't recorded for any period at all.
That is understood. However the medium begets a conversation around how most communication isn't recorded anyways, in this example if it were a phone call.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#56Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#57Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't Pichai allowed to have chat conversations that don't record history? Was there a case against Google already that bans this or something? And couldn't this just be circumvented by having an in-person meeting?
> couldn't this just be circumvented by having an in-person meeting? here I present you a case for the perils of remote work
The problem with Google Chat in this context is that even history-off Chats are kept for at least 24 hours before being destroyed (I’ve sometimes seen longer due to caching), so a record is created and then destroyed. That isn’t allowed when an obligation to preserve the record exists.
I admit I don’t know whether something like un-logged IRC would be allowed, but at the very least, any IRC clients that do log the history even for the purpose of displaying it locally after a crash and restart would themselves create a discoverable record subject to any applicable preservation obligation.
If you mean that remote workers are more likely to use Google Chat for sensitive information topics than in-person workers, yes, that could be an example of a peril of remote work. But, from the perspective of society rather than the company, making it harder for companies to hide misbehavior is actually an advantage of remote work.
Disclosure: I have worked for Google in the past, but not for more than 8 years now, and I have no inside knowledge of or connection to anything discussed in the submitted PDF.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> None of this is particularly surprising I am not a vengeful type. But people need to be punished to a shocking degree until this is fixed. It should be surprising. And it should have terrible, if not horrific, consequences.
who in particular would you punish? All this behavior is required by company policy, presumably set by Google's legal department: "Google employees are instructed that chatting “‘off the record’” is “[b]etter than sending . . . email” specifically because Google destroys off-the-record Chats every 24 hours, whereas it retains emails to produce in litigation".
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#59In one internal email sent in July 2018, a McKinsey executive appears to acknowledge the growing legal risk faced by Purdue Pharma over its opioid business.
"It probably makes sense to have a quick conversation with the risk committee to see if we should be doing anything other that [sic] eliminating all our documents and emails," McKinsey senior partner Martin Elling wrote in an email sent to another executive at the company. "As things get tougher here someone might turn to us."
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> None of this is particularly surprising I am not a vengeful type. But people need to be punished to a shocking degree until this is fixed. It should be surprising. And it should have terrible, if not horrific, consequences.
I suspect Google will be made an example of, which surprisingly is usually the case.
You can already see that in his previous findings: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23731433-23-03-28-go...
"The court has already declined to issue terminating sanctions against Google"
"the Court would like to see the state of the evidence at the end of fact discovery"
You can see the dilemma in that last statement. There is practically no discovery malpractice large enough to ever have a judge blow up a case, which is why it happens over and over again.