281–290 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Can 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…
Almost but not quite: the legal system very strictly segregates not creating evidence and destroying existing evidence.
You can’t be compelled to create incriminating evidence, but you can absolutely be compelled to maintain and turn it over. Failure to do so is considered confession in and of itself.
Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't Pichai allowed to have chat conversations that don't record history? Was there a case against Google already that bans this or something? And couldn't this just be circumvented by having an in-person meeting?
The complaint details the reason it was not allowed in this case, though would be normally: the topics were subject to legal holds. > Like Mr. Pichai, other key Google employees, including those in leadership roles, routinely opted to move from history-on rooms to history-off Chats to hold sensitive conversations, even though they knew they were subject to legal holds. Indeed, they did so even when discussing topics…
It gets a bit tricky privacy-wise if you cannot do same online. Though Google is probably the last company deserving any privacy.
This is....amazing. As I understand it: Chats at google by default have 24 hours of chat history. (That is, after 24 hours, the chat history is delelted.) You can opt in to having 30 days of chat history instead. And when under a legal hold, Google continues to delete chats in the 24 hour history mode, but will not delete chats in the 30 day history mode. That is, Google's theory here seems to be that if you have a p…
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…
It's always really funny/amazing that seemingly smart people think that the legal system can be "hacked" by doing cheap stuff like deleting history. It's going to come out and it's going to look bad. In an actual case that I was involved in, the other party was an ex-lawyer and had a rigorous practise of not keeping records in case something bad was discovered. I on the other hand had (terrifyingly, in retrospect) me…
Growth engineering? Uber became a unicorn doing exactly this.
The underlying business model looked quite reasonable for investors who assumed they could eventually turn off subsidies and terrible to those who didn’t. But, you don’t need to convince every investor just enough investors to keep going.
It's always really funny/amazing that seemingly smart people think that the legal system can be "hacked" by doing cheap stuff like deleting history. It's going to come out and it's going to look bad. In an actual case that I was involved in, the other party was an ex-lawyer and had a rigorous practise of not keeping records in case something bad was discovered. I on the other hand had (terrifyingly, in retrospect) me…
It's always really funny/amazing that this exact process works flawlessly for EU politicians: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-von-der-leyen-cant-...
Earlier 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…
I hope the lawyers involved emphatically remind the judge that "reasonable" in the case of Google, the self-described organizer of the world's information, would have been the perfect preservation of 100% of all evidence. That is the standard they applied to us mortals when they unleashed their surveillance capitalism upon us. Anything less than that is obviously a ploy to evade the consequences of whatever it is tha…
I don't think their dirty tricks and legal consequences are the main point here. The question is poorly political: Do we want a functioning market economy or not? I take only the mobile phone operating system. We have a high end walled garden segment. By its price point it will always have limited market share. And we have a all-the-rest market segment. Competition between these market segments exists but it is by na…
> The monopoly is unprecedented in history, so the solution needs to be so, too. What makes you think the Android monopoly is any worse than the Windows monopoly of the 90ties?