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

Post by iudqnolq » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #18

dataflow wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

Post by cmilton » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 2:28 AM UTC

irjustin wrote: post #47

cmilton wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://support.google.com/vault/answer/7664657?hl=en

mmm i'm looking for the legal documentation/language that requires google to hold the data for this particular topic. because i'm in agreement with the grandparent comment that why is the topic subject to legal holds vs just having a meeting in person? Are in person meetings rquired to have a voice recorder present? it seems like a weird legal precedent.

Post by steveBK123 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 2:34 AM UTC

zaphirplane wrote: post #93

steveBK123 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by steveBK123 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 2:34 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #96

steveBK123 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

Post by GalenErso » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 2:38 AM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #95

nightpool wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.