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

131–140 of 402 posts

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

#131

Post by master_crab »

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…

No. You are allowed to communicate by voice and it isn’t recorded and compliance will allow it. However it depends what you are doing. If you are trading, it better be on a recorded line. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-16 for reference.

In fact, many Zoom conversations are expressly forbidden from being recorded at many financial firms. Again, that’s because no one is using zoom to make trades so there isn’t a requirement to record them and financial firms also don’t want to have to pay to keep things stored just so some lawyer can hit them with discovery.

A big current issue is when you use written correspondence that is not part of a system of record. See Finra Regulatory Notice 17-18 for details on that.

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

#132

Post by gruez »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #57
hackernewds wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> couldn't this just be circumvented by having an in-person meeting? here I present you a case for the perils of remote work

I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that remote work doesn’t create a discoverable record if the conversation happens by unrecorded methods such as a video chat or phone call where the recording feature has not been enabled. 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…

>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.

This logic gets absurd when you push it to the limits. For instance, any sort of VOIP call would imply deletion, since the voice packets have to be buffered in memory for it to be decoded and played back. At least with respect to copyright law, the interpretation is reasonable. For instance, intermediary routers that copy packets as they pass through do not commit copyright infringement. pictures/videos that get cached on your device also doesn't count as copyright infringement.

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

#133

Post by defrost »

bomewish wrote: post #104
defrost wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Customer private data and internal employee communications are totally different things. What you’re saying applies only to the former.

Is there an actual need to warehouse internal employee communications (all employees, not just the execs) for ever?

In the event of a data breach can an excess of silo'd communications prove harmful and lead to regret that it was ever kept?

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

#134

Post by gwbas1c »

jimsimmons wrote: post #4

Would it have been better if they had these conversations in person and never left a breadcrumb trail? Not saying what they did is ethical but why would anyone have an expectation of forthrightness here?

> Would it have been better if they had these conversations in person

Probably because they weren't in the same room? Same building? Same state? Same country? The value of chat is that it's a very lightweight conversation; especially in a distributed team. It's also a good way to start a conversation with someone if they might be concentrating and need a few minutes to put down what they're doing. Either way, I would assume that in-person communication was impractical.

(Granted, I can see the need for "history off." Perhaps you need to discuss a personal matter, like an inappropriate advance of another co worker.)

> Not saying what they did is ethical but why would anyone have an expectation of forthrightness here?

Many people have different values than me.

Personally, whenever I communicate through any electronic means I assume that whatever I say might be recorded and used against me. It basically makes it hard to do crime; and I really don't want my employer to do crime; and I am not a criminal or politically persecuted.

I think the fact that much of our workplace day-to-day communication is recorded may expose that some people treat these matters different than you and I.

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

#135

Post by ocdtrekkie »

DesiLurker wrote: post #127
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google operates exactly like a criminal organization would. It's that simple, and we should talk about it in that way, because that is what it is. A huge portion of their business is effectively racketeering, and we should be putting Larry, Sergey, and Sundar in prison. RICO provides some tools to effectively bring in the heads of the organization based on the actions of people under their employ. "Nice website you g…

if you think thats criminal, you should look up what they do with android anti fragmentation agreement.

Heh, well aware. The MADA and AFA are insane reads, especially when you realize they apply to over half the mobile phones on the planet. It's one of those things they keep confidential not because they have any real trade secrets, but because they're flagrantly illegal and they want to keep government officials from seeing them.

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

#136

Post by hgsgm »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #94
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.or…

It's funnier when you realize that this is happening because no one knows how to talk on the phone anymore.

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

#137

Post by refurb »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #94
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.or…

Wow, that's not just "hey let's be careful", it's "hey, screw all that legal hold stuff, lol!"

What kind of legal guidance were these people getting? When I worked at a big corp, we had regular meetings with legal that were reminders of how to treat sensitive subjects and it was taken very seriously.

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

#138

Post by nobody9999 »

User23 wrote: post #82
nobody9999 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>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.

I suppose. Although, I'd think it'd be more like out in the parking lot, in a car or an exec's private office.

But I do have to say your vision is definitely an amusing one. But I'd have a flunky or two handy to flush the toilets every minute or so too. :)

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

#139

Post by angry_octet »

nightpool wrote: post #44
c7DJTLrn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I'm not familiar with what a legal hold is. Would they be obliged to take audio recordings or minutes of meetings due to this?

No, absolutely not. Legal holds prevent you from destroying evidence, they don't require you to produce new evidence and make it available. The legal theory of the plaintiffs in this case is that using 24-hour-expiring chats is tantamount to destroying evidence every 24 hours. I'm not a lawyer and can't comment on how well this matches with previous precedent in this area, but I get the general vague sense that using…

Normally a document (chat) deletion schedule is completely fine and standard practice at most corporations. The problem is that it continued (without exception for those with data retention holds) once litigation had started.

TBD whether using OTR exclusively (like having in-person real time meetings) for all chats would violate this. I guessing no, it's the choice to use OTR selectively by participants that causes problems.

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

#140

Post by seanmcdirmid »

shadowgovt wrote: post #123
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…

And it wouldn't take too many law changes to put FAANG under similar scrutiny. Seems like it might be time.

It would be difficult just to target FAANGs. If the law changed to include them, it would probably include everyone else as well. They aren't in any activity that is regulated by a special agency like banks/traders are.
Post reply on HN