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

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

#361

Post by shadowgovt » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #359

shadowgovt wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you think it is okay that the government trampled on the free speech rights of rappers Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both back then and now, the songs were easy to get and is still easy to get. If anything, the whole affair Streisand Effected the hell out of them. I think the story's a good example of a failed attempt at abuse of power because the system of checks and balances wo…

> Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both back then and now, the songs were easy to get and is still easy to get. If anything, the whole affair Streisand Effected the hell out of them. In the 1980s how did you produce or distribute music without the internet and computers that could produce music? The police arrested NWA at a concert for rapping “Fuck the police”. > No; they merely cut acc…

So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided.

I agree with you that the monopoly on violence requires more scrutiny than the soft-power of money. My argument is that certainly doesn't imply no government oversight, nor does it imply we don't have enough government oversight right now. Especially of corporations - your argument appears to be government power is dangerous to use because it can be abused vs. individuals and vs. music acts; can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)?

We can acknowledge government power is abused against individuals while still asserting it is the most effective tool against corporate overreach and should be wielded as such.

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

#362

Post by rdtsc » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #76

rdtsc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a funny intersection of hold requirements. Litigation and one set of compliance requires holding records for at least this much time, GDPR and other such things require keeping records no more than some particular time. I haven’t seen the case when the intersection is an empty interval. But I imagine then one would choose to justify breaking one of the least important ones.

GDPR Article 6, 1(c): > Processing shall be lawful […] if […] processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;

Ah perfect. Thanks for the reference.

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

#363

Post by s1artibartfast » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #340

s1artibartfast wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IIRC "quality approved necessary documents" are also exempt from discovery in malpractice cases, so there's no risk to holding onto them.

I dont think that is accurate at all. Lawsuits often turn on quality docs specifically. A simple example would be be something like a memo that states a defective product can still be released to market that goes on to kill someone. Another example would be a quality approved design document that shows infringement on competitor IP.

Most quality docs must be retained by law for the life of the company, even if they discontinue a product. So it isn't really judgement call from the legal department.

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

#364

Post by WastingMyTime89 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #358

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does constitute a record. You yourself spontaneously used the word record to talk about it. No one is trying to misunderstand what you are saying. You want there to be some kind of big tricky debate to be had about what kind of data is or isn’t a record. There is none. People know what a record is and when they encounter one. If you are storing something for a time, you have a record of it. It really is that simpl…

It's not that simple at all, especially in combination with automation and computing. What you are saying is that it is not possible to have an off-the-record chat app, because the data of the app will ALWAYS be stored somehow, even if it is just in RAM. Would you agree that this is what you are saying? Maybe the world is just more complicated than you'd like to admit.

> What you are saying is that it is not possible to have an off-the-record chat app

No, it’s not at all what I’m saying.

What I’m saying is that if you are keeping records of what’s said for a time like most chat apps do then these records are indeed records and no amount of hypothetical distorting regarding RAM or amount of time or what not will change the fact that they are records and you will have to keep them if the court tell you to do so.

If you were using a P2P messaging app where no storage was done at all at any point then you would have no record. It’s not that complicated honestly. Just don’t keep records if you don’t want there to be records.

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

#365

Post by eropple » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #346

polotics wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAM is permanent as long as you don't pull the plug. If you've been told to preserve evidence, and still pull the plug, then you did not do what you were told to do.

Silly analogy: person on lit hold writes a message in the sand on a beach with the tide out. Are they obligated to preserve the message before the tide erases it naturally?

If a judge thinks so, yes. So you should err on the side of caution, while being a good and ethical participant in the judicial process, and take a picture of it.

If this would be detrimental to your case, perhaps stop doing shady shit.

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

#366

Post by eropple » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

glerk wrote: post #243

polotics wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

The company must educate its employees because the company has obligations. A limited-liability corporation is a legal fiction granted extraordinary protections by a society. That corporation had damned well better be a good citizen of that society. If that means erring on the side of caution? Good.

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

#367

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

WWLink wrote: post #197

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paypal and Stripe's actions like seizing accounts automatically is probably more due to complying to industry rules rather than avoiding them. The "shady" things are what any bank would have to do, not just the techs.

No way. Any time I've had a debit card shut off, they made several blatant attempts to contact me, and when I called them they immediately connected me to the fraud department to help solve the issue. Getting a paypal/google/whatever account flagged is basically the death of that account.

You aren’t running a business, and you haven’t really dealt with your bank much beyond the e consumer level. They will cut you off as quickly as possible if they suspect anything nefarious going on. Banks are less reasonable than techs in this regards, you’ve just never used them to sell something.

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

#368

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

defrost wrote: post #180

Spooky23 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The product in a mechanics shop is labor and parts. These get tracked via inventory.

In knowledge work, the knowledge is the commodity. If you keep nothing beyond formal deliverables, you best have a system to capture the knowledge.

Most organizations are very bad at that. It requires a lot of rules, policies and people to enforce those policies. Google for a government retention schedule. It’s probably a 100 page document for a state or large city.

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

#369

Post by scarface74 » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 8:33 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #361

scarface74 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both back then and now, the songs were easy to get and is still easy to get. If anything, the whole affair Streisand Effected the hell out of them. In the 1980s how did you produce or distribute music without the internet and computers that could produce music? The police arrested NWA at a concert for rapping “Fuck the police”. > No; they merely cut acc…

So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided. I agree with you that the monopoly on violence requires more scrutiny than the soft-power of money. My argument is that certainly doesn't imply no government oversight, nor does it imply we don't have enough government oversight right now. Especially of corporations - your argument appears to be gover…

> So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided

No comparing government power and the harm they can inflict (taking away your freedom) to corporate power (they can take away pictures of little Johny) are night and day. I can live my whole life without dealing with Google.

> can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)?

In a very realistic scenario that someone said happens in highly regulated industries is that if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers.

States are trying to pass laws where social media companies have to verify your identity and your age before you can post.

Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat.

Government is arresting people based on their chat messages where they are talking about using pills that facilitate abortion between grown people?

Do I need to go on?

Is it worth having the government intrude in your life to protect your pictures of little Johny?

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

#370

Post by shadowgovt » Sun, Apr 16, 2023, 9:41 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #369

shadowgovt wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided. I agree with you that the monopoly on violence requires more scrutiny than the soft-power of money. My argument is that certainly doesn't imply no government oversight, nor does it imply we don't have enough government oversight right now. Especially of corporations - your argument appears to be gover…

> So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided No comparing government power and the harm they can inflict (taking away your freedom) to corporate power (they can take away pictures of little Johny) are night and day. I can live my whole life without dealing with Google. > can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corpora…

> if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers.

So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved.

> Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat

And they shouldn't. But the point is: for most users who haven't bothered to set up something like IRC, corporations already do. And you continue to harp on the ways that government can impact personal civil liberties when I am still talking about the ways government can restrict corporations from using unchecked power to make people's lives hell. For the purposes of this discussion, chat logs and abortion are irrelevant. Unless you think the personal right to have an abortion is somehow analogous to the corporate right to, what, Dodge tax law? Use dark money to fund a candidate like DeSantis getting into office?

If you're concerned about government overreach and a resulting threat to personal civil liberties, the best defense we have against it is strengthening and enforcing existing corporate auditing law. Because everything you're concerned about regarding civil liberties gets exponentially worse when corporations can buy politicians.

Government and corporate power aligning behind a common goal is on the road to fascism. I'm advocating for setting those power bases against each other.