[deleted]
Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
241–250 of 402 posts
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#242No wonder Google execs wanted us all back in the office really quickly in 2021.
I don't think it's related. Video calls are, AFAIK, perfectly legal to not record.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 decidi…
I am getting the feeling you are being disingenuous: a record is a record, a records that gets deleted after 24 hours was still a record. This is a truth based only on the meaning of the word "record". The chat application was not kept from preserving history, it was designed to actively delete history after 24 hours If there is a court order to not delete history, then the application was designed to do the opposite…
I admit I am playing the devil's advocate, but not trying to be disingenuous. The intention behind an ephemeral chat application is to allow private communication without creating a record. From the end user's perspective, the messages are thought to be self-destructing objects that are kept just long enough to be read by their recipient. The way this is achieved in practice is an implementation detail that end users are not necessarily aware of. I don't see how the users of the chat application can be expected to be aware of the implementation or proactively find ways for these private conversations to be recorded.
An analogous real-world situation would be a meeting in a room where someone uses the whiteboard to draw some diagrams and erases it at the end. If we apply the same logic, you would be under obligation to take pictures of the whiteboard and send them to the court? Or even that you should record the whole meeting? Something just doesn't feel right with the idea that you can be under obligation to help make a case against yourself in a legal proceeding.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#244I 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…
Today, we use instant messaging like we use voice conversation - especially for people who work remotely. Banning the use of ephemeral IM is sort of like saying “you need to record all of your discussions, no matter how trivial”.
Levine’s article makes a great point:
“It really is wild that the SEC’s official position is now that it is illegal to “use unofficial communications to do things like cut deals, win clients or make trades.” “Conduct their communications about business matters within only official channels”! Imagine if that was really the rule! You can’t have lunch with a client and talk about business, or have beers with your colleagues and gripe about work, because that does not create a searchable archive for the SEC to review.”
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#245Can a legal-hold require you to wear a wire 24/7 and record everything you say? Can they require that you do not speak in person to anyone else at your company unless it is by email, and each email is cc’d to Epic Games?
Those would be my naive tests for whether a judge can require you to use instant-messaging with permanent history over ephemeral history.
Edit: my armchair lawyering doesn’t add nearly as much to this discussion as the other responses here.
Deliberately going on record as saying “let’s hook the email printer up to the auto shredder and claim innocence winking-smiley-emoji” when a judge has told you not to is indeed the kind of behaviour of which a court should take a very dim view.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
FRCP 37 ... (e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information. If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court: (1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order…
> a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it There is nothing reasonable about turning an existing system that was never designed to keep chats at all, to do on a whim, where would cause irreparable damage to the common offering both internally and externally. Once is a pass, but 24 hours is not nearly an established window that a medium can/should be made arbitrarily compliant. It would be a large preced…
There is nothing reasonable about an existing system that was designed from the very start to shield monopolistic corporations from scrutiny. More so when it's illegal.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#247Ironically at google's scale(size and global timezone footprint) the inefficiency this default setting creates likely burns millions every day from work that gets blocked or knowledge that isn't discoverable. Organize the world's information, except if it might make us look bad. This is the pennywise pound foolish leadership that has taken over.
Seriously. It's hard enough for me to find stuff in my company's Slack instance, never mind if everything auto-deleted after 24 hours or 30 days.
Conversations in real life get deleted after 0s! The trick is to not use chat as documentation. Documentation as documentation is way more useful. The process of creating it is valuable to
clear thinking too.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#248Earlier 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…
Today, we use instant messaging like we use voice conversation - especially for people who work remotely. Banning the use of ephemeral IM is sort of like saying “you need to record all of your discussions, no matter how trivial”. Levine’s article makes a great point: “It really is wild that the SEC’s official position is now that it is illegal to “use unofficial communications to do things like cut deals, win clients…
There’s a difference between avoiding discovery by tacitly moving conversations offline versus saying that you are doing so, in writing, in a discoverable channel, specifically to avoid discovery.
The spirit of the latter crosses a line of showing deliberate contempt for the legal process. Doing it in writing seems just as ill advised as discussing sensitive information in writing.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#249Earlier 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…
It's funnier when you realize that this is happening because no one knows how to talk on the phone anymore.
Wow it has been maybe 15 years since I called someone at work, about work using a phone.
Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]
#250Can a legal-hold require you to wear a wire 24/7 and record everything you say? Can they require that you do not speak in person to anyone else at your company unless it is by email, and each email is cc’d to Epic Games? Those would be my naive tests for whether a judge can require you to use instant-messaging with permanent history over ephemeral history. Edit: my armchair lawyering doesn’t add nearly as much to thi…
A wire will also record anything around you that is not necessarily directly related to your actions... so in some potentially-important ways they are significantly different. Though the argument for "I was not aware, being in X group does not mean I follow all messages" is also entirely reasonable, e.g. I'm in several hundred slack channels at work but I only closely follow like a dozen.
But yeah, I think "let's go off-record" is almost equivalent to "let's destroy evidence" when you are informed you're being monitored for legal purposes. Innocent until proven guilty is deeply critical, but when you're informed those suspicious actions are doubly suspicious and there must be some kind of room for suspicion or criminals will always be able to avoid conviction.