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

81–90 of 402 posts

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

#81

Post by steveBK123 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #78
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…

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

All phone conversations are recorded and kept for at least 7 years.

This is in addition to all email and slack/IM messages.

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

#82

Post by User23 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #77
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 conversa…

> 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.

Now I’m imagining tech executives having meetings in the bathroom with all the faucets going full blast whispering like the mafia dons of old.

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

#83

Post by aikinai »

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

Are you allowed to have in-person meetings? Do you have to record and preserve them?

If you are allowed to be off the record only in person, this seems like the perfect commercial real estate subsidy program from the federal government.

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

#84

Post by ilaksh »

The US can't regulate the monopolies adequately.

The east doesn't have the same problem to that degree but in a way their solution is probably worse. Depending on who you ask, much worse.

We need a new paradigm for government. It needs to be nuanced, sophisticated, balanced and yet holistic, and integrate well with technology.

Or maybe due to the incompetence of current governments, the technology itself with take over.

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

#85

Post by steveBK123 »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #79
steveBK123 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think its rather disingenuous or modest for tech to fall back on "whats the worst that can happen, maybe you lose some pictures from the cloud" as a defense for such a light touch.

There's many areas in which tech competes directly with, or has attempted to build shadow parallel systems to other more regulated industries - payments, exchanges, various medical plays, media, etc.

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

#86

Post by defrost »

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…

On a tangential but somewhat intertwined note:

Australia has recently had multiple data breaches across a number of large groups that saw decades of user data copied .. that should have been PURGED.

Some of it arguably should never have been retained - proof of identity data, addresses, passport numbers, etc.

Obviously this isn't the same as internal emails, chat histories, etc but I'm hoping we here in Australia see a solid swing away from data retention "just in case", "because we can".

The default setting on all such things and software really needs to be nothing is saved unless specifically and knowingly set to be saved (for a solid recorded reason) and then for only the minimum neccesary duration.

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

#87

Post by Waterluvian »

steveBK123 wrote: post #81
Waterluvian wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All phone conversations are recorded and kept for at least 7 years. This is in addition to all email and slack/IM messages.

I feel like it might be really awesome to have that complete firewall between work and life comms.

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

#88

Post by jacquesm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #28
thakoppno wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really seems to me that to succeed in business in the US one has to skirt the line of legality with regularity.

At least, to succeed in substantive illegality, it becomes necessary to skirt and even cross the line of procedural illegality to conceal the substantive illegality. Whether substantive illegality is necessary to succeed in business is another question, but it seems to be a common choice.

> Whether substantive illegality is necessary to succeed in business is another question, but it seems to be a common choice.

You'd hope not. But there is this proverb that 'at the root of every great fortune lies a great crime' which has been around for long enough that even if it may not be a necessity it may well be strongly correlated.

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

#89

Post by steveBK123 »

aikinai wrote: post #83
grepfru_it wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you allowed to have in-person meetings? Do you have to record and preserve them? If you are allowed to be off the record only in person, this seems like the perfect commercial real estate subsidy program from the federal government.

Yes but there's almost always someone on zoom/conference line in the meeting, which is recorded, so..

The penalties are so stiff for a lot of infractions, there is far less attempts to workaround the letter of the rules than you would immediately expect.

There's also classes of in-person meetings with externals that you need pre-approval permission to attend and to write up what was discussed after the fact.

Like people at asset management firms attending a dinner with a broker.

Another example, at a hedge fund I worked, emails, meetings or phone calls to public companies required pre-approval from compliance, and for them to be on the email or call. The emails would also require a preface reminding the moron on the other side that you are a hedge fund and they should not provide you with any material non-public info.

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

#90

Post by jacquesm »

tguvot wrote: post #59

It's even funnier reading than famous McKinsey email: In 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 El…

> "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,"

Gah that is so incredible dumb and the fact that he didn't check himself before hitting 'send' is just perfect. Nothing like a bit of hubris to go with the mindset of a criminal. It makes you wonder what 'anything other' referred to.

Post reply on HN