11–20 of 22 posts
There is nothing wrong with deleting a chat. It is foolish to incriminate oneself by keeping unnecessary chats. Whether they should have been using a chat or not for government business is another matter.
If you’re working in government and in some cases outside of government you have communications retention requirements.
Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part.
There is nothing wrong with deleting a chat. It is foolish to incriminate oneself by keeping unnecessary chats. Whether they should have been using a chat or not for government business is another matter.
That depends. If you’re working in government and in some cases outside of government you have communications retention requirements. Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part.
No, it's not "evidence" if it hasn't already been collected. You're presuming there is evidence or that it is official communication. Until it's collected, it's just a chat. It's your constitutional right to delete your personal chat and to not incriminate yourself. In contrast, if you were ordered by a judge to not delete a personal chat, that's a different matter.
And Adams himself: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/09/26/eric... > On November 5, Adams surrendered that mobile phone – but there was a hitch. > “When Adams produced his personal cellphone the next day in response to a subpoena, it was 'locked,' such that the device required a password to open,” the indictment said. “Adams claimed that after he learned about the investigation into his conduct, he ch…
The most striking thing about all this is just how bad everyone on Adams staff and himself were at it. When I worked for a local government I was told all my communications could get FOIAd so to be careful about what I did and I wasn't even working on anything sensitive or illegal.
NYC mayor’s office has been slow rolling several of my FOIA requests, and with this event, I am suddenly not surprised why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends. If you’re working in government and in some cases outside of government you have communications retention requirements. Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part.
> Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part. No, it's not "evidence" if it hasn't already been collected. You're presuming there is evidence or that it is official communication. Until it's collected, it's just a chat. It's your constitutional right to delete your personal chat and to not incriminate yourself. In contrast, if you were ordered by a judge to not delete a personal c…
I don't like this (it punishes private record keeping) but it's enforced, I believe also by state courts. Big tech companies set impractically short retention policies in general but also put some records on "litigation hold", because they know they can't refuse to comply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then there’s the destroying evidence once you’re aware of an investigation part. No, it's not "evidence" if it hasn't already been collected. You're presuming there is evidence or that it is official communication. Until it's collected, it's just a chat. It's your constitutional right to delete your personal chat and to not incriminate yourself. In contrast, if you were ordered by a judge to not delete a personal c…
> When a party reasonably anticipates litigation, they have a duty to preserve documents and electronically stored information (ESI). This duty is codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e). I don't like this (it punishes private record keeping) but it's enforced, I believe also by state courts. Big tech companies set impractically short retention policies in general but also put some records on "l…
More seriously, you're spot-on about setting a short retention policy. It's the primary rational way.
I hope that people can understand when I'm playing devil's advocate when no one else will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When a party reasonably anticipates litigation, they have a duty to preserve documents and electronically stored information (ESI). This duty is codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e). I don't like this (it punishes private record keeping) but it's enforced, I believe also by state courts. Big tech companies set impractically short retention policies in general but also put some records on "l…
Yes, the legal way is to lose the device in a boating accident, so to speak. The federal government itself has routinely lost hard drives in this manner that were subject to litigation. More seriously, you're spot-on about setting a short retention policy. It's the primary rational way. I hope that people can understand when I'm playing devil's advocate when no one else will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the legal way is to lose the device in a boating accident, so to speak. The federal government itself has routinely lost hard drives in this manner that were subject to litigation. More seriously, you're spot-on about setting a short retention policy. It's the primary rational way. I hope that people can understand when I'm playing devil's advocate when no one else will.
TL;DR: A retention policy is fine. A new retention policy the day you get a subpoena for your records is not.
And Adams himself: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/09/26/eric... > On November 5, Adams surrendered that mobile phone – but there was a hitch. > “When Adams produced his personal cellphone the next day in response to a subpoena, it was 'locked,' such that the device required a password to open,” the indictment said. “Adams claimed that after he learned about the investigation into his conduct, he ch…
If that doesn't scream corruption.. It's astonishing, to someone who doesn't live in NYC, how much of the Adam's administration is under a cloud of criminal suspicion.