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

91–100 of 402 posts

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

#91

Post by ehPReth »

natnat wrote: post #7

Regardless of the merits of the case, this is a really funny exploration into how bad Google's chat products are.

ugh, yes. Google creates a new type of 'space' (unthreaded/threaded v1/threaded v2) - and... you can't change the space's type. You have to make a new space.

They released a 'new threading system' a while ago. So you now have rooms with two types of threading systems and can't 'upgrade' the old ones. So one organization has at least 3 types of spaces depending on when they were made and they can't be changed at all. (Also, you can't switch from unthreaded to threaded or the other way around.)

Your only solution is to kick everyone out of the space (can't be made read only) and make a brand new space (losing any history/context/shared files in the space). No one's going to do that so you just live with having all these different room types even if another would work better.

Recently, Google rolled out a new 'announce only' setting where only "Space Managers" can post messages. Cool! Let's apply it to an existing space that we are already using for that purpose (company announcements) and prevent other people from... polluting it as they sometimes do. NOPE - you can't! Either "live with it" or create a brand new space with that setting and abandon the existing one.

I could maybe see you not changing space types but something as 'simple' as changing who can send messages to a space? Force everyone to leave the old one and make a new one??? Really Google???

Are they just super lazy over there with developing features or what's their major malfunction?

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

#92

Post by wanderingmind »

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…

Wondering which official phone was used to get AAA ratings for the crap synthetic CDOs during 08 crisis.

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

#93

Post by zaphirplane »

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.

The work Android or iPhone records calls? Is it even possible

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

#94

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

"The attitude difference with respect to document holds was hilarious."

megcampbell@google.com: "it needs to be history off"

https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...

schramm@google.com: "should we have history off for this?"

https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...

margaretlam@google.com: "Hi Tim, if OK, can I ask you to turn history off :)"

https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...

margaretlam@google.com: [interesting exchange with another employee who is trying to follow the rules]

https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...

Paraphrasing: "What policy? I'm on multiple legal holds as well. I ignore them every day [smileyface] But if you want to follow the rules, I'll respect your decision. I'll just communicate with the others off the record. I only included you for optics reasons."

Some would say that company culture starts at the top. Here's the 50-year-old CEO:

https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...

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

#95

Post by pclmulqdq »

nightpool wrote: post #65
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…

This probably isn't because of litigation holds, actually, this is because finance firms are under SEC record-keeping rules, which require the preservation of ALL internal written communications, regardless of whether they're currently being sued or not. It's a bit of a different beast. See https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-02/the-se... which covers some ... interesting recent developments of this ru…

Yeah, as I understand it though, the SEC rules are to allow investigations (and "enforcement actions"/lawsuits) to happen quickly. I saw one of these "investigations" happening at one point and had no idea it was an investigation until I was casually informed that the strange people in the office were from the SEC and they had some questions about some trades, and that it happens all the time.

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

#96

Post by dylan604 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #89
aikinai wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

I can only think to myself, well, yeah, that's what that industry gets for all of the bullshit shenanigans that have been pulled in the past. Is everyone commit flat out illegal shit like Wolf Of Wall St? No. But this is the only way to allow any semblance of trust by anyone. That being said, I personally believe every company if finance/banking is doing something shady somewhere, even if only a small number of people are involved. There is no trust whatsoever from me to that industry

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

#97

Post by pclmulqdq »

glerk wrote: post #69
rawgabbit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer. When a legal hold is issued, the company is instructed not to destroy potential evidence related to the case. They don’t have to perform additional recordings and minutes. But they exist, they can’t destroy it.

Who gets to decide what is "potential evidence"? If we're going to play language games, turning the chat history off doesn't really destroy anything, just prevents the paper trail from being created.

Well, I think the physical mechanism of turning off chat history on most of the modern chat platforms is to have a database delete each message after everyone in the conversation reads the message, which is a lot closer to destroying evidence than not making records.

Also, if you destroy evidence that may be under litigation hold, the judge will instruct the jury to infer that what you deleted was harmful to your case.

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

#98

Post by pclmulqdq »

hackernewds wrote: post #41
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will admit that I suspect some of the reason does indeed lie in having 'impromptu' conversations, which are helpfully not recorded anywhere. The other two pieces are real estate and 'feeling' of control. I am not sure which one bears more weight.

The largest one is likely monitoring that employees are working 8+ hours a day.

I'm not so sure - there was a lot of talk about "impromptu hallway conversations" and "the magic of bumping into your colleagues in the kitchen." I assume they surveil everyone's computers very heavily, too.

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

#99

Post by iudqnolq »

glerk wrote: post #69
rawgabbit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer. When a legal hold is issued, the company is instructed not to destroy potential evidence related to the case. They don’t have to perform additional recordings and minutes. But they exist, they can’t destroy it.

Who gets to decide what is "potential evidence"? If we're going to play language games, turning the chat history off doesn't really destroy anything, just prevents the paper trail from being created.

> Who gets to decide what is "potential evidence"?

You have an obligation to proactively figure that out yourself. There is then oversight by the court.

> If we're going to play language games

Judges don't play that sort of language games

> turning the chat history off doesn't really destroy anything

What Google called off the record chats were 24 hour history chats. So the history was deleted after 24 hours, when it should have been preserved.

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

#100

Post by steveBK123 »

wanderingmind wrote: post #92
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…

Wondering which official phone was used to get AAA ratings for the crap synthetic CDOs during 08 crisis.

Not a great example for nefarious off the records communication & coordination, as it wasn't required for this to occur.

CDO credit ratings were a perverse incentive race to the bottom in terms of quality, because it was issuer-paid.

The ratings agencies essentially bid on future business with the banks by issuing rosier ratings than their competitors.

Also, they paid billions in fine settlements after the fact.

The record keeping likely contributed to them being able to piece together the agencies becoming more and more lenient, and the internal dialogue between analysts & sales.

Post reply on HN