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

171–180 of 402 posts

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

#171

Post by DiggyJohnson »

GalenErso wrote: post #109
pclmulqdq wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the strange people in the office What made them strange, other than the fact you didn't know who they were?

The fact that they were strangers is what makes them strange…

For some reason this question is geeking me out, what sort of answer were you expecting?

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #169
burniemcburnfce wrote: post #121

Would MicroSoft Teams meetings (including 1:1 private calls between individual employees) be converted from Voice to Text and stored? Could those turn up in FOI's or SEC requests one day, or even just be viewed by higher-ups at the company with access? I'd guess what's said in 1 on 1 calls could be quite sensitive

[deleted]

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by jmole »

Spooky23 wrote: post #130
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…

If you have a policy or procedure, what you’re suggesting is ok in most companies. There’s no law that says that you need to keep security camera footage for any length of time. If your practice to to retain for 7 days, and you get a subpoena to provide it 10 days later, no problem. But if you are directed to retain footage from February 30th, or have a reasonable foreknowledge that you should keep the footage, you’r…

Footage from February 30th would be pretty hard to find no matter what your retention policy is.

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

#175

Post by sharedbeans »

refurb wrote: post #137
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Very clear that Google also had lots of legal guidance and training on this issue, but their training was trying to achieve a different outcome.

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

#176

Post by glerk »

iudqnolq wrote: post #99
glerk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What Google called off the record chats were 24 hour history chats.

Ah, I missed that part, that's a very compelling argument. I disagree these are not language games though. The way the chat application was kept from preserving history is an implementation detail that doesn't reflect the action the user of the chat performed in the UI.

It sounds like the truth is whatever a human judge can be convinced into deciding is true.

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

#177

Post by e_y_ »

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…

"Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail"

- Eliot Spitzer to CNN Money, an updated version of a much older saying by Martin Lomasney

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

#178

Post by s1artibartfast »

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 is the same story in the medical space. Chat history is deleted after 7 days. Emails are deleted after 18 months. Cloud store documents are deleted after 3 years. Is all about legal downside. Of course, quality approved necessary documents are retained for the, entire duration of the company

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

#180

Post by defrost »

Spooky23 wrote: post #130
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…

If you have a policy or procedure, what you’re suggesting is ok in most companies. There’s no law that says that you need to keep security camera footage for any length of time. If your practice to to retain for 7 days, and you get a subpoena to provide it 10 days later, no problem. But if you are directed to retain footage from February 30th, or have a reasonable foreknowledge that you should keep the footage, you’r…

> If you consciously don’t create records for matters that aren’t confidential, people are probably going to infer something.

I'm suggesting that software companies that provide products and companies that use them adopt a default position of NOT creating records | histories | customer interactions and only engage record keeping by an explicit action that has a time limit and is logged with a reason for retention.

I have no issue with legally required | meeting minute keeping | security footage for a month | etc | records.

If that becomes the norm then people would no longer why (for example) worker to worker chat conversations "across the bench" aren't being kept for 50 years (or even longer than a month | current project duration).

Mechanics working on a car have no need to be recorded in perpetuity (although its handy to retain footage for XX weeks in case of an accusation of theft from a vehicle) just as shop floor software workers have no need to be recorded "forever".

Post reply on HN