Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

ia601707.us.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 402 posts

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#71

Post by steveBK123 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #30

I moved from an HFT firm to Google. The attitude difference with respect to document holds was hilarious. At the HFT firm, the attitude was, "we're constantly being sued (by the SEC and others), so we treat all of our records like they're under litigation holds, just in case the SEC claims they wanted them, even the off-topic slack channels." At Google, the attitude was, "we're constantly getting sued, so we treat al…

Yeah, FAANG gang has no idea the level of surveillance and record keeping that bank/fund/wall st tech is under.

I worked at one shop that if you said "call my cell" in a slack to someone, you'd get a call from compliance within days ask to explain why you did this, what the conversation was about, why it wasn't on a work phone.. and to never, ever, ever do it again... because you know we are watching, so we will find you.

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#72

Post by steveBK123 »

ip26 wrote: post #38
pclmulqdq wrote: post #30

I moved from an HFT firm to Google. The attitude difference with respect to document holds was hilarious. At the HFT firm, the attitude was, "we're constantly being sued (by the SEC and others), so we treat all of our records like they're under litigation holds, just in case the SEC claims they wanted them, even the off-topic slack channels." At Google, the attitude was, "we're constantly getting sued, so we treat al…

Finance is default not trusted. If documents are missing, fraud is presumed. Tech doesn’t seem to have reached that point just yet.

Finance is generally well regulated, tech is well.. not.

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#74

Post by rdtsc »

hackernewds wrote: post #34
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

Earlier 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.

At least in the past they were spending a few pennies for lobbying to various legislators on both sides of the isle. With a bit of luck and they’d be calling in some favors.

They might be punished but it may be a slap on the wrist.

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#75

Post by grepfru_it »

steveBK123 wrote: post #71
pclmulqdq wrote: post #30

I moved from an HFT firm to Google. The attitude difference with respect to document holds was hilarious. At the HFT firm, the attitude was, "we're constantly being sued (by the SEC and others), so we treat all of our records like they're under litigation holds, just in case the SEC claims they wanted them, even the off-topic slack channels." At Google, the attitude was, "we're constantly getting sued, so we treat al…

Yeah, FAANG gang has no idea the level of surveillance and record keeping that bank/fund/wall st tech is under. I worked at one shop that if you said "call my cell" in a slack to someone, you'd get a call from compliance within days ask to explain why you did this, what the conversation was about, why it wasn't on a work phone.. and to never, ever, ever do it again... because you know we are watching, so we will find…

Every bank I’ve worked at issued a company cell phone. To be pedantic if you say call my personal cell, then compliance will be on you like flies on poop

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#76

Post by wizzwizz4 »

rdtsc wrote: post #70
SirAllCaps wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my company (not finance, and never gotten sued), documents are ephemeral primarily due to GDPR reasons. Many of them contain various personal data of clients and/or employees, legal makes us specify for how long each service needs to hold on to it, and purge as soon as possible to minimize chance of leaks.

It’s a funny intersection of hold requirements. Litigation and one set of compliance requires holding records for at least this much time, GDPR and other such things require keeping records no more than some particular time. I haven’t seen the case when the intersection is an empty interval. But I imagine then one would choose to justify breaking one of the least important ones.

GDPR Article 6, 1(c):

> Processing shall be lawful […] if […] processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#77

Post by nobody9999 »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #20

None of this is particularly surprising, but it's very amusing to see the litigation go this route. It's incredible common for corporate legal to recommend purging data or communications no longer relevant, or to advise avoiding specific means of communication (like email) due to retention challenges. It's incredibly dumb to explicitly discuss avoiding leading a paper trail with respect to subjects where litigation i…

>It's incredibly dumb to explicitly discuss avoiding leading a paper trail with respect to subjects where litigation is imminent or already in progress.

I'd say it's incredibly dumb to do that on a platform that can record the interaction.

I never understood why folks use platforms like slack/email/etc. to discuss stuff they don't want others to know about.

The ideal for that, of course, is to have in-person conversations in a place either known to be free of surveillance and/or difficult to surveil.

Failing that, assuming you trust the other party (which, in a case like the one we're discussing, you'd think would be the case), an unrecorded telephone call (yes, you can actually still do that) will work in a pinch.

I don't know how many times (many, though), I've met with someone in person or spoken via telephone about stuff that might be less than flattering (for me, at least, nothing illegal/unethical -- usually more about discussing my or the other party's activities/behavior that might reflect poorly on either of us or the organization) to avoid any record of such conversation.

I'm not suggesting that people should organize/discuss unethical/illegal things on any platform (in person included). Rather, I am surprised that folks have and continue to do so on recorded (or even potentially recordable) media.

Especially someone as obviously (how else could he have come to head GOOG) smart and savvy as Pichai.

It's not like this is something new, is it?

Edit: Removed extraneous text.

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#78

Post by Waterluvian »

steveBK123 wrote: post #71
pclmulqdq wrote: post #30

I moved from an HFT firm to Google. The attitude difference with respect to document holds was hilarious. At the HFT firm, the attitude was, "we're constantly being sued (by the SEC and others), so we treat all of our records like they're under litigation holds, just in case the SEC claims they wanted them, even the off-topic slack channels." At Google, the attitude was, "we're constantly getting sued, so we treat al…

Yeah, FAANG gang has no idea the level of surveillance and record keeping that bank/fund/wall st tech is under. I worked at one shop that if you said "call my cell" in a slack to someone, you'd get a call from compliance within days ask to explain why you did this, what the conversation was about, why it wasn't on a work phone.. and to never, ever, ever do it again... because you know we are watching, so we will find…

Would work phones be recorded or just have the call numbers/times recorded?

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#79

Post by RhodesianHunter »

steveBK123 wrote: post #72
ip26 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finance is default not trusted. If documents are missing, fraud is presumed. Tech doesn’t seem to have reached that point just yet.

Finance is generally well regulated, tech is well.. not.

Which in some contexts makes sense. Losing all of your Facebook pictures is never going to be as devastating as losing your retirement.

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#80

Post by steveBK123 »

grepfru_it wrote: post #75
steveBK123 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, FAANG gang has no idea the level of surveillance and record keeping that bank/fund/wall st tech is under. I worked at one shop that if you said "call my cell" in a slack to someone, you'd get a call from compliance within days ask to explain why you did this, what the conversation was about, why it wasn't on a work phone.. and to never, ever, ever do it again... because you know we are watching, so we will find…

Every bank I’ve worked at issued a company cell phone. To be pedantic if you say call my personal cell, then compliance will be on you like flies on poop

I said something like "call my cell at __" and put my personal cell number, but didn't say "personal".

Which gives you an idea of the level of monitoring they are doing to tie that together probably automatically given how quickly I was called. And this was almost 10 years ago.

I'm also old enough to recall the little background hum & beep the bank landlines used to make when you were on a recorded line.

Post reply on HN