Judge mulls sanctions over Google's destruction of internal chats(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Judge mulls sanctions over Google's destruction of internal chats
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/judge-mulls-sanctions-over-googles-shocking-destruction-of-internal-chats/
244 comments
You should note you're quoting the DOJ's argument, not a finding of fact. Google seems to be arguing that chats are different than other documents (informal and ephemeral, I guess?) and default auto-delete is reasonable for them.
Deciding that (and if it's worth sanctions if Google is wrong) is literally what's being asked of the judge.
Deciding that (and if it's worth sanctions if Google is wrong) is literally what's being asked of the judge.
This is the problem with the digital world.
To me, a slack message or chat message is the digital equivalent to me going to your desk or talking to you at lunch in person.
Now we live in a digital world where because we can, we are now being told to record. How would this be any different than the courts demanding that all conversations be recorded via audio recording when not using a chat application.
I think the fair trade off is “if i have the document, then I will produce it” and a default policy of delete after x time would be tested no different than if you or I had a conversation in person.
To me, a slack message or chat message is the digital equivalent to me going to your desk or talking to you at lunch in person.
Now we live in a digital world where because we can, we are now being told to record. How would this be any different than the courts demanding that all conversations be recorded via audio recording when not using a chat application.
I think the fair trade off is “if i have the document, then I will produce it” and a default policy of delete after x time would be tested no different than if you or I had a conversation in person.
>To me, a slack message or chat message is the digital equivalent to me going to your desk or talking to you at lunch in person.
To some people, posting on a public facebook wall is likewise the digital equivalent of talking to someone at lunch in person. Where is the line?
>I think the fair trade off is “if i have the document, then I will produce it” and a default policy of delete after x time would be tested no different than if you or I had a conversation in person.
The purpose is to get the truth of the dispute, not prevent liability for people acting badly. Your purpose for not having courts see evidence of wrongdoing is so that what, things are better for the wrongdoers? If your argument is feasibility or removing the recording element at all, I'd understand, but the thing is already recorded.
>Now we live in a digital world where because we can, we are now being told to record. How would this be any different than the courts demanding that all conversations be recorded via audio recording when not using a chat application.
It'd be different because courts aren't demanding the conversations be recorded at all; that's just the way things are working. If you worked at a company where all conversations are recorded and you're on camera all the time, you'd have to preserve those too.
To some people, posting on a public facebook wall is likewise the digital equivalent of talking to someone at lunch in person. Where is the line?
>I think the fair trade off is “if i have the document, then I will produce it” and a default policy of delete after x time would be tested no different than if you or I had a conversation in person.
The purpose is to get the truth of the dispute, not prevent liability for people acting badly. Your purpose for not having courts see evidence of wrongdoing is so that what, things are better for the wrongdoers? If your argument is feasibility or removing the recording element at all, I'd understand, but the thing is already recorded.
>Now we live in a digital world where because we can, we are now being told to record. How would this be any different than the courts demanding that all conversations be recorded via audio recording when not using a chat application.
It'd be different because courts aren't demanding the conversations be recorded at all; that's just the way things are working. If you worked at a company where all conversations are recorded and you're on camera all the time, you'd have to preserve those too.
There is a big difference in deleting chat after the court asked, and simply not retaining chats.
Something about your reply seems to indicate the topic is about self cleaning messages, which is under question by the courts of deleting evidence.
Even the words utter in a room linger some time after they leave my lips. Should we be told to install acoustic tiles that let the words echo for the ages so the courts can determine the truth?
Something about your reply seems to indicate the topic is about self cleaning messages, which is under question by the courts of deleting evidence.
Even the words utter in a room linger some time after they leave my lips. Should we be told to install acoustic tiles that let the words echo for the ages so the courts can determine the truth?
Facebook is inherently different because of the broadcast style of updates rather than targeted messaging. I don't think the intent of usage matters as much of the intent of the system. Facebook statuses are designed to be fairly public.
> The purpose is to get the truth of the dispute, not prevent liability for people acting badly. Your purpose for not having courts see evidence of wrongdoing is so that what, things are better for the wrongdoers? If your argument is feasibility or removing the recording element at all, I'd understand, but the thing is already recorded.
The purpose of not recording everything is to allow businesses (read: the people within them) to function efficiently without having to worry that anything and everything they say could be dragged into the record on a lawsuit. Also to encourage people to put problems on the record, paradoxically.
I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question. I'm rapidly running out of ways to communicate that aren't on the record, which poses a communication problem for the business and inhibits dealing with problems that could lead to a lawsuit.
In a world where chats aren't part of the eternal record, I can pop in and say "hey, such and such feature seems like it has a security/privacy risk, we should take a look at that". The communication is valuable, and the business is now aware of the problem.
In a world with eternal chat records, nobody wants me to point that out unless we are ready to deal with it immediately. If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing". Everyone would prefer that I had said nothing, because the business' liability is diminished if they can say they were unaware of the problem.
The underlying reality here is that business do not want their problems on public record, and will encourage their employees to communicate using non-recorded means or, failing that, to not communicate at all. It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about.
Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent.
Our legal system does not reward recording communications in the least, it actively penalizes doing so. We're trying to strong arm businesses into doing something against their own best interests, and I'm doubtful that's a productive line of action.
> The purpose is to get the truth of the dispute, not prevent liability for people acting badly. Your purpose for not having courts see evidence of wrongdoing is so that what, things are better for the wrongdoers? If your argument is feasibility or removing the recording element at all, I'd understand, but the thing is already recorded.
The purpose of not recording everything is to allow businesses (read: the people within them) to function efficiently without having to worry that anything and everything they say could be dragged into the record on a lawsuit. Also to encourage people to put problems on the record, paradoxically.
I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question. I'm rapidly running out of ways to communicate that aren't on the record, which poses a communication problem for the business and inhibits dealing with problems that could lead to a lawsuit.
In a world where chats aren't part of the eternal record, I can pop in and say "hey, such and such feature seems like it has a security/privacy risk, we should take a look at that". The communication is valuable, and the business is now aware of the problem.
In a world with eternal chat records, nobody wants me to point that out unless we are ready to deal with it immediately. If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing". Everyone would prefer that I had said nothing, because the business' liability is diminished if they can say they were unaware of the problem.
The underlying reality here is that business do not want their problems on public record, and will encourage their employees to communicate using non-recorded means or, failing that, to not communicate at all. It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about.
Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent.
Our legal system does not reward recording communications in the least, it actively penalizes doing so. We're trying to strong arm businesses into doing something against their own best interests, and I'm doubtful that's a productive line of action.
>I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question.
Zoom? Phone calls? You choose to use a recorded form of communication, but there are options. That said, if your goal is to intentionally hide information from use in a future lawsuit, there are easier ways to decrease your business's liability that don't run the same risks.
> If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing".
You example about nobody wanting you to point this out because that creates liability is an error. The liability arguably already exists because the business should have known of the issue and did not. A policy of not reporting security issues because they fear lawsuits makes things much worse, making it potentially rise to recklessness. So you not telling the company about it on purpose, if that's a part of the culture of the company, is likely worse than you telling the company and having them make a reasonable assessment of risk and resource allocation. That's not "doing nothing" from a legal standpoint. Whether their decision was reasonable under the circumstances is one thing but it's usually not random people on the street evaluating this.
By the way, this has nothing to do with chat. Why do you think many companies routinely do security evaluations? It's not because consumers care. If your example is true companies would do better to not have security at all.
Finally with this, even if it were better for the company not to report it would be worse for you not to report.
>Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent.
Courts don't do that, though. Businesses decide to use recorded communication, much the same way they did when the law was created and distance was an issue.
> It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about
That's not necessarily true, but even if it is it wouldn't be preferable from a commerce standpoint. This isn't business in a legal vacuum.
Zoom? Phone calls? You choose to use a recorded form of communication, but there are options. That said, if your goal is to intentionally hide information from use in a future lawsuit, there are easier ways to decrease your business's liability that don't run the same risks.
> If I point it out, the business schedules it to be handled in a quarter or two, and they get hacked in the meantime then my chat message is on the record as evidence that the business was aware of the problem and "did nothing".
You example about nobody wanting you to point this out because that creates liability is an error. The liability arguably already exists because the business should have known of the issue and did not. A policy of not reporting security issues because they fear lawsuits makes things much worse, making it potentially rise to recklessness. So you not telling the company about it on purpose, if that's a part of the culture of the company, is likely worse than you telling the company and having them make a reasonable assessment of risk and resource allocation. That's not "doing nothing" from a legal standpoint. Whether their decision was reasonable under the circumstances is one thing but it's usually not random people on the street evaluating this.
By the way, this has nothing to do with chat. Why do you think many companies routinely do security evaluations? It's not because consumers care. If your example is true companies would do better to not have security at all.
Finally with this, even if it were better for the company not to report it would be worse for you not to report.
>Requiring recording of all communications just encourages the business to not communicate internally, leading to the exact same problems recording was supposed to prevent.
Courts don't do that, though. Businesses decide to use recorded communication, much the same way they did when the law was created and distance was an issue.
> It would be legally preferable to ship a product full of issues the business is unaware of than to ship a product with a single issue that the business is on record knowing about
That's not necessarily true, but even if it is it wouldn't be preferable from a commerce standpoint. This isn't business in a legal vacuum.
Take the chat logs from any organization, no matter how perfectly rule-abiding, pure and saintly and a prosecutor or adversarial lawyer will be able to find snippets of text that can be taken out of context to make them look bad.
Chats, emails, zoom calls, in-person conversations, etc all make sense to be ephemeral. Official company documents published by HR, official specifications, advertisements, etc make sense to be kept long-term.
Chats, emails, zoom calls, in-person conversations, etc all make sense to be ephemeral. Official company documents published by HR, official specifications, advertisements, etc make sense to be kept long-term.
Why would emails be ephemeral? I see the argument he and presumably you are making in terms of chats, though I disagree with it both in terms of what the law currently is and in what it should be, but email? Mail isn't ephemeral.
When you are having a conversation in person and you don't know it is being recorded, you have an expectation that it won't be recorded because that is the default. Do you have an expectation by default that your chat system, slack or whatever irc you use is not accessible by anyone ever again, once you close the client? I don't because that hasn't been the case for most chat clients ever.
When you are having a conversation in person and you don't know it is being recorded, you have an expectation that it won't be recorded because that is the default. Do you have an expectation by default that your chat system, slack or whatever irc you use is not accessible by anyone ever again, once you close the client? I don't because that hasn't been the case for most chat clients ever.
> To some people, posting on a public facebook wall is likewise the digital equivalent of talking to someone at lunch in person. Where is the line?
This is what they think. In fact "posting on a public facebook wall" is equivalent to talking live on television.
This is what they think. In fact "posting on a public facebook wall" is equivalent to talking live on television.
As someone who speaks from experience: at best Slack conversations should be treated as “a recorded conversation between employees that people with power can review at any time.”
https://slack.com/help/articles/201658943-Export-your-worksp...
https://slack.com/help/articles/201658943-Export-your-worksp...
> To me, a slack message or chat message is the digital equivalent to me going to your desk or talking to you at lunch in person.
Slack literally stands for Searchable Log of All Conversation and Knowledge. That's why it was built! It's explicitly meant to supersede talking at lunch with something recorded and searchable.
Slack literally stands for Searchable Log of All Conversation and Knowledge. That's why it was built! It's explicitly meant to supersede talking at lunch with something recorded and searchable.
It is endlessly frustrating that my company aggressively deletes slack messages after 14 days. As a consequence, they're paying for slack and effectively using it like a basic chat client because the lawyers are simple minded fools.
you mean, they restrict your searches to messages newer than 14 days.
huge difference.
huge difference.
All it provides is one to many time shifting.
What if a chat program deleted the message exactly after the recipient read it?
What if a chat program never persisted messages to disk and only in memory?
Would companies be told not to ever power off machines?
What if a chat program deleted the message exactly after the recipient read it?
What if a chat program never persisted messages to disk and only in memory?
Would companies be told not to ever power off machines?
> Now we live in a digital world where because we can, we are now being told to record. How would this be any different than the courts demanding that all conversations be recorded via audio recording when not using a chat application.
You say this as if to illicite some sort of shock or disapproval from the reader but for me its the opposite.
Why shouldnt the permanent storage of all communications between companies the size of Google be mandated by law?
From my perspective this seems to be a net benefit for society.
You say this as if to illicite some sort of shock or disapproval from the reader but for me its the opposite.
Why shouldnt the permanent storage of all communications between companies the size of Google be mandated by law?
From my perspective this seems to be a net benefit for society.
The problem is that people in chats may self censor, fearing that many years from now someone will comb through the chats
People already do this, at least if they're smart.
Yeah that's kind of the idea. If it's harder to communicate about doing illegal things, it's harder to do illegal things.
That's a feature, not a bug.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This isn't about just inhibiting illegal things, constant surveillance has a chilling effect on many subjects
Yes, and the greater good would be served by having a chilling effect on people in these positions, even if it means with the unintended consequences.
You're correct that the judge hasn't ruled yet. However, not very many people, lawyers or otherwise, seem to be buying what Google is selling here. These kinds of chats are routine in discovery and disappearing messages like on Signal have regularly gotten people in trouble with the courts. Google's argument seems to boil down to they are special because reasons? And if they were so certain it was permissible, they'd still be doing it.
Most (all?) cases I’ve seen are in finance where the SEC, FINRA, etc has special rules that call out text messaging specifically.
[deleted]
Here’s our friends at Amazon vs FTC:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/jassy-bezos-oth...
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/jassy-bezos-oth...
I've seen a few in district courts related to Rule 37(e)(2) and signal in particular.
> Google seems to be arguing that chats are different than other documents (informal and ephemeral, I guess?) and default auto-delete is reasonable for them.
My company has a default auto-delete for our email Inbox. Yet, we have all been trained to retain the emails (by moving them to a folder) if notified of a relevant legal event. I don't know if in practice I have to manually save them or whether IT will just disable autodelete on my account. In any case, the message is clear: Autodelete is not permissible under such circumstances.
Sorry Google. Nice try.
My company has a default auto-delete for our email Inbox. Yet, we have all been trained to retain the emails (by moving them to a folder) if notified of a relevant legal event. I don't know if in practice I have to manually save them or whether IT will just disable autodelete on my account. In any case, the message is clear: Autodelete is not permissible under such circumstances.
Sorry Google. Nice try.
In my org at Google, if you were under a legal hold, you were told to turn off retention for all conversations.
It was framed as "saving work for people who have to review conversations" (lol)
My org wasn't well-managed, lot of nepotism, promoting people who couldn't organize to save their life, but were good company men, too good. They saw having to have history off as a status badge because they saw higher ups did.
They even would independently escalate it from there. Towards the end of my tenure, a couple of them acted like it was obvious and mandatory not to name people in meeting notes. Such a strange place.
It was framed as "saving work for people who have to review conversations" (lol)
My org wasn't well-managed, lot of nepotism, promoting people who couldn't organize to save their life, but were good company men, too good. They saw having to have history off as a status badge because they saw higher ups did.
They even would independently escalate it from there. Towards the end of my tenure, a couple of them acted like it was obvious and mandatory not to name people in meeting notes. Such a strange place.
Name and shame.
Who specifically told you to turn off retention for all conversations?
Who specifically told you to turn off retention for all conversations?
0 point in sharing, unfortunately. I don't think they weren't hiding anything important, certainly not for Search, and it'd play into their conception of the situation to name or do anything other than get far away, as soon as possible.
The bitter lesson from 7 years there was people are tribal and protect their own, everywhere. People regressed the higher up they got and longer they were there.
It was the tip of the iceberg in terms of conduct you think managers would care about. I dealt with what happened by smiling and nodding, not taking the dare to tell HR, telling a non-direct manager exactly once, and leaving.
At the end of the day, it's just a good ol' boys club with everyone trying to just get through one more day. Questioning is complaining is lack of cooperation is not a team player.
The bitter lesson from 7 years there was people are tribal and protect their own, everywhere. People regressed the higher up they got and longer they were there.
It was the tip of the iceberg in terms of conduct you think managers would care about. I dealt with what happened by smiling and nodding, not taking the dare to tell HR, telling a non-direct manager exactly once, and leaving.
At the end of the day, it's just a good ol' boys club with everyone trying to just get through one more day. Questioning is complaining is lack of cooperation is not a team player.
> Google seems to be arguing that chats are different than other documents (informal and ephemeral, I guess?) and default auto-delete is reasonable for them.
Yes but only if they are their chats. Your chats are still used for your profiling.
In some countries, disregarding laws is a fellony.
Yes but only if they are their chats. Your chats are still used for your profiling.
In some countries, disregarding laws is a fellony.
"You should note you're quoting the DOJ's argument, not a finding of fact."
Why? The facts quoted in the parent comment, namely that Google destroyed _potential_ evidence, are not in dispute. Google has never denied that it destroyed chats after anticipating litigation in 2019. Because, surprise, that's what it did. In violation of the federal rules, Google destroyed chats that should have been preserved for potential discovery. This is not a DOJ argument. It is a fact. DOJ may use this fact in its arguments.
We can verfiy this by looking at Google's latest response. If the parent comment's quote was a "DOJ argument" then Google should be countering it by denying it destroyed potential evidence. That is not what Google argues.
Google is arguing (a) the destruction was not an _intentional_ attempt to conceal information from the DOJ and (b) the information destroyed did not contain any _relevent_ evidence.^1
Of course it's impossible to resolve the issue presented by (b) because the information has been destroyed. Google is essentially saying, "Trust us, there wasn't anything relevant in those chats." The DOJ cannot "prove" the chats contained relevant evidence because it cannot see the chats; Google destroyed them.
Does this situation created by _Google destroying the chats_ play in Google's favour? What do readers think?
1. These quotes come from Google's latest response.^2 Italics added are mine.
"356. Plaintiffs seek to rewrite history in their contention that Google's long-time chats retention practices-of which they were on notice since the beginning of this litigation- evidence the purposeful "destruction" of evidence. DOJ Br. at 75-79. And, recycling arguments from their unsuccessful sanctions motion filed in Spring 2022 (see May 12, 2022, Minute Order), Plaintiffs spin instructions to Google employees to use care in their written communications into supposed "concealment" of evidence. DOJ Br. at 75-79. There is no basis, in fact or law, to impose sanctions on Google. Each of the Google witnesses who was questioned on these matters at trial confirmed that there was no intentional destruction of evidence, and no evidence was presented that could support the conclusion that Google concealed or destroyed relevant evidence with the intention of gaining some advantage in the litigation. Google has produced millions of documents, including all manner of formal business documents as well as more informal communications such as email, and there is no reason to believe that the record before the Court is anything less than complete."
"358. Far from supporting Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions related to Google's Chat retention policies, the trial testimony confirmed that the motion is without merit. In particular, there is no reason to believe that history-off chats created after notice of the DOJ investigation in 2019 and not otherwise preserved and produced contained material information of any significance to resolving Plaintiffs' claims. Nor is there any evidence that there was any intentional effort by Google to deprive Plaintiffs of the use of information in this litigation; after all, Google disclosed to Plaintiffs the very approach to chats preservation that they now challenge long before Plaintiffs filed their original motion. See ECF No. 529 at 7-17; ECF No. 576-1 at 1-2.16
359. Plaintiffs' proposed findings obfuscate these facts, and are designed to suggest- without supportive evidence, let alone actual proof-that some relevant information was lost."
2. https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...
Why? The facts quoted in the parent comment, namely that Google destroyed _potential_ evidence, are not in dispute. Google has never denied that it destroyed chats after anticipating litigation in 2019. Because, surprise, that's what it did. In violation of the federal rules, Google destroyed chats that should have been preserved for potential discovery. This is not a DOJ argument. It is a fact. DOJ may use this fact in its arguments.
We can verfiy this by looking at Google's latest response. If the parent comment's quote was a "DOJ argument" then Google should be countering it by denying it destroyed potential evidence. That is not what Google argues.
Google is arguing (a) the destruction was not an _intentional_ attempt to conceal information from the DOJ and (b) the information destroyed did not contain any _relevent_ evidence.^1
Of course it's impossible to resolve the issue presented by (b) because the information has been destroyed. Google is essentially saying, "Trust us, there wasn't anything relevant in those chats." The DOJ cannot "prove" the chats contained relevant evidence because it cannot see the chats; Google destroyed them.
Does this situation created by _Google destroying the chats_ play in Google's favour? What do readers think?
1. These quotes come from Google's latest response.^2 Italics added are mine.
"356. Plaintiffs seek to rewrite history in their contention that Google's long-time chats retention practices-of which they were on notice since the beginning of this litigation- evidence the purposeful "destruction" of evidence. DOJ Br. at 75-79. And, recycling arguments from their unsuccessful sanctions motion filed in Spring 2022 (see May 12, 2022, Minute Order), Plaintiffs spin instructions to Google employees to use care in their written communications into supposed "concealment" of evidence. DOJ Br. at 75-79. There is no basis, in fact or law, to impose sanctions on Google. Each of the Google witnesses who was questioned on these matters at trial confirmed that there was no intentional destruction of evidence, and no evidence was presented that could support the conclusion that Google concealed or destroyed relevant evidence with the intention of gaining some advantage in the litigation. Google has produced millions of documents, including all manner of formal business documents as well as more informal communications such as email, and there is no reason to believe that the record before the Court is anything less than complete."
"358. Far from supporting Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions related to Google's Chat retention policies, the trial testimony confirmed that the motion is without merit. In particular, there is no reason to believe that history-off chats created after notice of the DOJ investigation in 2019 and not otherwise preserved and produced contained material information of any significance to resolving Plaintiffs' claims. Nor is there any evidence that there was any intentional effort by Google to deprive Plaintiffs of the use of information in this litigation; after all, Google disclosed to Plaintiffs the very approach to chats preservation that they now challenge long before Plaintiffs filed their original motion. See ECF No. 529 at 7-17; ECF No. 576-1 at 1-2.16
359. Plaintiffs' proposed findings obfuscate these facts, and are designed to suggest- without supportive evidence, let alone actual proof-that some relevant information was lost."
2. https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...
Actually it's worse that "Trust us, there wasn't anything relevant in those chats." Google does not deny there was relevant evidence destroyed, it argues that DOJ does not have any proof that the chats contained relevant evidence.
[deleted]
"Google was accused of enacting a policy instructing employees to turn chat history off by default when discussing sensitive topics, including Google's revenue-sharing and mobile application distribution agreements."
They didn't ask employees to destroy evidence but to avoid retaining evidence in the first place. Not leaving sensitive information in logs, backups etc is quite reasonable, even if it would have been useful to justice here.
They didn't ask employees to destroy evidence but to avoid retaining evidence in the first place. Not leaving sensitive information in logs, backups etc is quite reasonable, even if it would have been useful to justice here.
This comment[1] provides a good explanation on why this analogy is absurd:
> 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 policy to destroy certain letters and memos 24 hours after receiving or creating them, then you don't need to stop doing that and preserve them even if under a court ordered legal hold. But if your policy is to destroy certain documents 30 days after creating them, then you must stop deleting them and retain them if ordered by a court.
> Which is....a.....theory!
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35587100
> 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 policy to destroy certain letters and memos 24 hours after receiving or creating them, then you don't need to stop doing that and preserve them even if under a court ordered legal hold. But if your policy is to destroy certain documents 30 days after creating them, then you must stop deleting them and retain them if ordered by a court.
> Which is....a.....theory!
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35587100
I haven't worked at Google, so maybe there are better channels than "chat that's holding everything together", but I can't imagine that being unable to search a chat and look at who said what and when is useful. I use it all the time to look up some random useful command a coworker told me long ago that I neglected to write down, for instance, or to follow up with a long-stale thread to revive it.
I suppose that's what email and design docs are for, but I feel a lot of that "organizational glue" in chat is quite valuable. How do Googlers live without it?
I suppose that's what email and design docs are for, but I feel a lot of that "organizational glue" in chat is quite valuable. How do Googlers live without it?
Everyone bitches about it when they first start and eventually learns a better way. The culture is about creating explicit artifacts of knowledge (design docs, documentation, commit/review messages, etc) rather than trying to dig around in streams of consciousness hoping to find the bits of info you need later.
This is such a Googler comment, because it applies to basically everything at the company. “Everyone hates this when they join, but eventually they’re enlightened of the better way to do things, and it’s all good.” Dude, no. People write docs about stuff they care about but nobody writes docs about the weird error they got once that they needed a workaround for or whether their internal tool is named after a Pokémon or their favorite food. Believe me, I worked there, it was a massive pain. To say nothing of sending your boss something at 4 PM on a Friday and it being as if you never messaged them when they opened their laptop on Monday.
> People write docs about stuff they care about but nobody writes docs about the weird error they got once that they needed a workaround for
Google has an internal stackoverflow-style site as well as bug reports and mailing lists that are all preserved for longer than 1-1 chats.
Google has an internal stackoverflow-style site as well as bug reports and mailing lists that are all preserved for longer than 1-1 chats.
Walk me through this interaction. Do I search your team’s chats for that one time the intern found your build was flaky, or do I take to YAQS to discuss my build failure? Because the interaction is going to go like this:
Me: I’m trying to build //big/important/project, but I’m getting this error on my Mac: “GShoe 1.3 required, but not found.” I depend on it here in my BUILD file: cl/42069. Can someone help me?
A: We deprecated GShoe last year, what are you trying to do? This isn’t something we support. Say, who are you? Don’t you work in a completely different org? We do all our builds on Cloudtop anyways…
Me: I was just trying to get acquainted with the code, this GShoe integration is something that I was interested in playing with.
A: Wait, this isn’t even your job? Hang on, why does your CL add butts.txt?
Me: Uh, I’m doing a thing…for Memegen?
A: …
More seriously though, checking your chats is something I can do myself without imposing myself on you, and it includes basically everything you’ve ever talked about rather than just what you see fit to publish and stand behind. I don’t need to have to wait until I’m stuck enough to ask a question, make sure you understand what I want, nor do I have to argue with you whether what I’m doing is appropriate or not. Or, more likely, I’m not going to get anyone spending time to reply anyways, because your promo committee is not going to search you on MOMA to see how many people you made happy online. So I’d really rather just trawl your chats and send you back documentation or questions based on that rather than you taking a moral stance that deleting your chat history means my life is better or easier.
Me: I’m trying to build //big/important/project, but I’m getting this error on my Mac: “GShoe 1.3 required, but not found.” I depend on it here in my BUILD file: cl/42069. Can someone help me?
A: We deprecated GShoe last year, what are you trying to do? This isn’t something we support. Say, who are you? Don’t you work in a completely different org? We do all our builds on Cloudtop anyways…
Me: I was just trying to get acquainted with the code, this GShoe integration is something that I was interested in playing with.
A: Wait, this isn’t even your job? Hang on, why does your CL add butts.txt?
Me: Uh, I’m doing a thing…for Memegen?
A: …
More seriously though, checking your chats is something I can do myself without imposing myself on you, and it includes basically everything you’ve ever talked about rather than just what you see fit to publish and stand behind. I don’t need to have to wait until I’m stuck enough to ask a question, make sure you understand what I want, nor do I have to argue with you whether what I’m doing is appropriate or not. Or, more likely, I’m not going to get anyone spending time to reply anyways, because your promo committee is not going to search you on MOMA to see how many people you made happy online. So I’d really rather just trawl your chats and send you back documentation or questions based on that rather than you taking a moral stance that deleting your chat history means my life is better or easier.
Unlike SO, it's common to have very situation-specific questions posted on YAQS. In fact, my team preferred random one-off questions to go through YAQS (our contact golink pointed you to a monitored YAQS queue) precisely because they're much more searchable (and scalable) than point-to-point chats.
So yes, searching for your GShoe error, and (assuming you found nothing) asking about it on YAQS is not a bad way to get help from some random faraway team.
I suppose it's partially because most team chats are locked down (invite-only). In a company with a reasonably open slack, you might be able to ask in #gshoe-team or search it for relevant conversations, but not at Google in my experience - and this is setting aside the issue of message retention.
BTW, I agree 24h retention was truly ridiculous. Most of my colleagues hated it - fortunately (probably as a result of this legal case!) they disabled it and now the default is 30d everywhere.
Regarding promo, community contributions are still very much an expectation. Being active on YAQS counts toward that. True, the promo committee isn't going to go looking for it, so your manager needs to agree YAQS is a level-appropriate community contribution and include that in your promo packet.
Disclosure: I left Google like, a couple weeks ago
So yes, searching for your GShoe error, and (assuming you found nothing) asking about it on YAQS is not a bad way to get help from some random faraway team.
I suppose it's partially because most team chats are locked down (invite-only). In a company with a reasonably open slack, you might be able to ask in #gshoe-team or search it for relevant conversations, but not at Google in my experience - and this is setting aside the issue of message retention.
BTW, I agree 24h retention was truly ridiculous. Most of my colleagues hated it - fortunately (probably as a result of this legal case!) they disabled it and now the default is 30d everywhere.
Regarding promo, community contributions are still very much an expectation. Being active on YAQS counts toward that. True, the promo committee isn't going to go looking for it, so your manager needs to agree YAQS is a level-appropriate community contribution and include that in your promo packet.
Disclosure: I left Google like, a couple weeks ago
When someone finds a problem, you raise a bug with reproduction steps, then either fix it or put it in the backlog. Even if it is a document bug. This way anyone - even people not in that chat - can find it.
This is normal operating procedure everywhere: write stuff down. It was how everyone did things before chat was digital, and how they do now too.
If people are relying on searching chat history for how to fix things or get things working, then you are working at a cowboy outfit where quality must suck. I am not saying google the ideal here - I have no insider knowledge there - but fuck dude using chat history to document and maintain your system? Jesus.
This is normal operating procedure everywhere: write stuff down. It was how everyone did things before chat was digital, and how they do now too.
If people are relying on searching chat history for how to fix things or get things working, then you are working at a cowboy outfit where quality must suck. I am not saying google the ideal here - I have no insider knowledge there - but fuck dude using chat history to document and maintain your system? Jesus.
Having joined a company that uses Slack for the first time it was crazy how good it was on searching for issues that other people had. I can quite literally copy and paste the error message above and see other people that had the same issue and how it got solved or not on a thread. I can also bump the thread or go to the channel or reach out to who answered.
It’s pretty great and one of the amazing things on having a lot as chat, it also allows you to easily reach out to anyone very quickly and feels more personal than a ticket in some archaic bug system that becomes a black hole after it gets introduced.
Be careful with your assumptions - it’s not like Google has created much of value in the past N years with its current culture, its original culture (book how Google works) seems much more like the cowboy you criticize
It’s pretty great and one of the amazing things on having a lot as chat, it also allows you to easily reach out to anyone very quickly and feels more personal than a ticket in some archaic bug system that becomes a black hole after it gets introduced.
Be careful with your assumptions - it’s not like Google has created much of value in the past N years with its current culture, its original culture (book how Google works) seems much more like the cowboy you criticize
> The culture is about creating explicit artifacts of knowledge
In the case of Google, the culture was, explicitly, about destroying potential evidence of wrongdoing [1].
[1]: https://ia601707.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
In the case of Google, the culture was, explicitly, about destroying potential evidence of wrongdoing [1].
[1]: https://ia601707.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
The culture is about creating explicit artifacts of knowledge
That's a poor culture, then. The company's original ethos -- organizing existing, organic knowledge in ways that make it searchable, accessible, and useful -- was much better for everyone, both inside Google and outside.
Or at least it was better for everyone inside Google until they started breaking the law. Then it became a liability, which is why you were told that the culture was about "creating artifacts."
That's a poor culture, then. The company's original ethos -- organizing existing, organic knowledge in ways that make it searchable, accessible, and useful -- was much better for everyone, both inside Google and outside.
Or at least it was better for everyone inside Google until they started breaking the law. Then it became a liability, which is why you were told that the culture was about "creating artifacts."
You're still losing a ton of info, including who said what to who.
It happens a ton that an exchange is misunderstood and the wrong action is taken. I can't image having only some resume of the whole thing and no logs of who participated, who said what at what time, and replay it all to get back on track from where it went off the rails.
Sure you can just have the same discussion again, but that's such a waste of time IMHO.
It happens a ton that an exchange is misunderstood and the wrong action is taken. I can't image having only some resume of the whole thing and no logs of who participated, who said what at what time, and replay it all to get back on track from where it went off the rails.
Sure you can just have the same discussion again, but that's such a waste of time IMHO.
Exactly this. It's not uncommon to ask a coworker how to do something, get a response, and then send them a follow-up CL adding that information to a playbook or doc somewhere so others can reference it.
Heck, sometimes I responded to questions with a CL adding that info to docs.
The internal search engine helps drive a lot of this, too - if you want to know how to do something, docs (via search) are like the #1 choice. So, everyone's pretty incentivized to make it a good resource.
Heck, sometimes I responded to questions with a CL adding that info to docs.
The internal search engine helps drive a lot of this, too - if you want to know how to do something, docs (via search) are like the #1 choice. So, everyone's pretty incentivized to make it a good resource.
Chat isn't a good way to store information.
While I clearly agree, what I've experienced in my career (including other non-G FAANG / MAGAM / whatever it's called now companies) is that one will get some help over chat to fix some issue, but think "this is such a small issue that will only happen once" or just get too busy with other stuff and neglect to properly write up documentation or put it in one's PKM effectively.
Having chat history and being able to type "chat:"Bob Joe" mitigation jitter identity server" or whatever search query to dredge up the single useful command that slipped through the PKM cracks is so useful.
I guess one is forced to be disciplined about it, but I wonder if Google knows whether this chat-curtailment policy is basically costing them millions in wasted dev time because they have to re-ask for help and bother people. However, in my current company (using Teams), I still get re-asked for help all the time and usually quote reply my prior message saying "please search for this before asking. I found it easily".
Having chat history and being able to type "chat:"Bob Joe" mitigation jitter identity server" or whatever search query to dredge up the single useful command that slipped through the PKM cracks is so useful.
I guess one is forced to be disciplined about it, but I wonder if Google knows whether this chat-curtailment policy is basically costing them millions in wasted dev time because they have to re-ask for help and bother people. However, in my current company (using Teams), I still get re-asked for help all the time and usually quote reply my prior message saying "please search for this before asking. I found it easily".
I agree. It's about as bad as relying on shell history (which I don't keep either).
If you do something to solve a problem, that should go into a ticket or into a note file or even into a paper notebook.
I'm older, maybe this is partly generational. I find chat to be almost uniformly annoying, and I use it very rarely. I sometimes go days without even launching my chat client. I prefer email which doesn't have the expectation of "drop what you're doing an pay attention to ME!!" that chat does.
If you do something to solve a problem, that should go into a ticket or into a note file or even into a paper notebook.
I'm older, maybe this is partly generational. I find chat to be almost uniformly annoying, and I use it very rarely. I sometimes go days without even launching my chat client. I prefer email which doesn't have the expectation of "drop what you're doing an pay attention to ME!!" that chat does.
> I can't imagine that being unable to search a chat and look at who said what and when is useful
It might be the bright side of a dystopia, but this is actually pretty useful in practice. If you can't reference previous chats, you don't have to spend time doing it. Instead, you rememeber you had a chat about how to do X, and then do X however you like, because there's nothing to say that's not how to do it. When someone asks you a question on chat, you don't have to be sure about the answer, unless they're going to use it right away, because they'll just do whatever they wanted after the chat expires anyway. This is freeing, in the same way that an autoclosing bug tracker is freeing.
It might be the bright side of a dystopia, but this is actually pretty useful in practice. If you can't reference previous chats, you don't have to spend time doing it. Instead, you rememeber you had a chat about how to do X, and then do X however you like, because there's nothing to say that's not how to do it. When someone asks you a question on chat, you don't have to be sure about the answer, unless they're going to use it right away, because they'll just do whatever they wanted after the chat expires anyway. This is freeing, in the same way that an autoclosing bug tracker is freeing.
It's annoying. I just copy anything important from chat messages into a big text file
Presumably it would be better if it was a phone call? Does a legal hold require recording all calls?
> > Which is....a.....theory!
I guess their theory is these ephemeral chats are like phone calls, as opposed to written communication.
> > Which is....a.....theory!
I guess their theory is these ephemeral chats are like phone calls, as opposed to written communication.
Something has to go out of it's way to explicitly delete a chat. Phone calls aren't stored by default in the first place. If all phone calls were recorded and deleted after 24 hours, then yes, it would probably be a violation of the legal hold to continue deleting them after 24 hours.
And every time you view a website you make a copy? The implementation can be considered independent from the UX
Voicemails have a copy which are typically deleted after a period of time
If a court determined that someone was intentionally leaving voicemails so that their messages would get destroyed while their company was subject to a legal hold, that would be illegal. I think pretty generally, courts are sympathetic that humans are human, but they're decidedly unsympathetic to malintent.
But if someone were leaving voicemails for just the purpose of communicating?
It would depend. If the voicemails were pertinent to the ongoing litigation, the counsel for the party responsible for the legal hold might be required to ensure those voicemails are retained. The legal hold isn't "preserve anything that's convenient to retain". If they can't be retained, they shouldn't be left, and it's the job of the legal team to make sure that's conveyed.
Wall Street records all calls. Has forever, since long before storage was cheap.
Banks are required to by the SEC
no.
they were under legal obligation to retain that evidence, and were lying in court and claiming that they were retaining that evidence.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
>All this time, Google falsely told the United States that Google had "put a legal hold in place" that "suspends auto-deletion." Indeed, during the United States' investigation and the discovery phase of this litigation, Google repeatedly misrepresented its document preservation policies, which conveyed the false impression that the company was preserving all custodial chats. Not only did Google unequivocally assert during the investigation that its legal hold suspended auto-deletion, but Google continually failed to disclose—both to the United States and to the Court—its 24-hour auto-deletion policy. Instead, at every turn, Google reaffirmed that it was preserving and searching all potentially relevant written communications.
they were under legal obligation to retain that evidence, and were lying in court and claiming that they were retaining that evidence.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
>All this time, Google falsely told the United States that Google had "put a legal hold in place" that "suspends auto-deletion." Indeed, during the United States' investigation and the discovery phase of this litigation, Google repeatedly misrepresented its document preservation policies, which conveyed the false impression that the company was preserving all custodial chats. Not only did Google unequivocally assert during the investigation that its legal hold suspended auto-deletion, but Google continually failed to disclose—both to the United States and to the Court—its 24-hour auto-deletion policy. Instead, at every turn, Google reaffirmed that it was preserving and searching all potentially relevant written communications.
Bingo.
What Google did here is sanctionable. It's not something the courts tend to look favorably on and could ultimately end up getting a default judgement.
And this isn't the first case of Google burying evidence to try and complicate legal proceedings. They had, for example, the policy of "any email with sensitive stuff should cc legal" policy to try and shield potential criminal behavior with attorney client privilege.
What Google did here is sanctionable. It's not something the courts tend to look favorably on and could ultimately end up getting a default judgement.
And this isn't the first case of Google burying evidence to try and complicate legal proceedings. They had, for example, the policy of "any email with sensitive stuff should cc legal" policy to try and shield potential criminal behavior with attorney client privilege.
The important part is it is only sanctionable. The boss is shown, in writing, to violate court orders, and the worst that will happen is having to pay an insignificant fee. So why not violate the court order?
So the risk is that if intent is shown the spoliated evidence is assumed to be unfavorable for the party responsible, so the court will tell the jury to consider the facts in light of the missing evidence being negative for Google. It can also result in a default judgment against Google.
Sanctions can include jail time and a default judgement. That's not insignificant. Sanctions can just be fines, they can also be a lot more.
A legal hold is very serious and I can’t believe they would be so negligent or untruthful. This is a very bad look.
> Not leaving sensitive information in logs, backups etc is quite reasonable
We have evidence that Google execs instructed their relations to turn off chat specifically to avoid future discovery [1]. Excerpt from this document :
> In one Chat, Mr. Pichai began discussing a substantive topic, and then immediately wrote: “also can we change the setting of this group to history off.”1 Then, nine seconds later, Mr. Pichai apparently attempted (unsuccessfully) to delete this incriminating message.
[1]: https://ia601707.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
We have evidence that Google execs instructed their relations to turn off chat specifically to avoid future discovery [1]. Excerpt from this document :
> In one Chat, Mr. Pichai began discussing a substantive topic, and then immediately wrote: “also can we change the setting of this group to history off.”1 Then, nine seconds later, Mr. Pichai apparently attempted (unsuccessfully) to delete this incriminating message.
[1]: https://ia601707.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
Under 18 U.S.C. § 151 "Concealment" is obstruction of justice, and almost certainly illegal in this case.
There is a wide body of legal precedent on the topic, for example moving an email to the trash does not count, but "delete forever" (called "double delete" in the opinion) does.
Have your chat setup to autodelete does not get you out of that.
Especially when they have well documented how they only instructed to do that for legally sensitve topics.
That's interesting, but how is that any different at all from discussing a topic in person in which it is immediately discarded so long as it is not recorded? Seems identical and it should not be considered concealment in any way, even if it's for "sensitive" meetings, as they could have just as easily been done in person verbally with no recordings. This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended.
> This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended.
This is a well established part of legal practices government or otherwise. If you sue someone or something civility you are entitled to read all documents they have on the matter in discovery.
This isn't the government being nosey, it's part of law to ensure justice is done. If you claim "we aren't doing x" your position is strengthened if all you docs say "we don't do X" it is only weakened if you docs say "we are definitely doing x".
It also cuts both ways. You get to get the documents from the litigant related to the topic at hand. If that have docs that say "we are only suing to shut them up" that can look really bad at trial.
Discovery is there so there isn't surprises at trial. Everyone gets to know what everyone has do they can plan out the best legal theories for themselves. It would actually be unfair otherwise.
Consider, for example, if the government sued Google for X, but they had documents in their possession that said "Google did not do X". That unfairly puts Google at a disadvantage and calls into question why the prosecution happened in the first place.
This is a well established part of legal practices government or otherwise. If you sue someone or something civility you are entitled to read all documents they have on the matter in discovery.
This isn't the government being nosey, it's part of law to ensure justice is done. If you claim "we aren't doing x" your position is strengthened if all you docs say "we don't do X" it is only weakened if you docs say "we are definitely doing x".
It also cuts both ways. You get to get the documents from the litigant related to the topic at hand. If that have docs that say "we are only suing to shut them up" that can look really bad at trial.
Discovery is there so there isn't surprises at trial. Everyone gets to know what everyone has do they can plan out the best legal theories for themselves. It would actually be unfair otherwise.
Consider, for example, if the government sued Google for X, but they had documents in their possession that said "Google did not do X". That unfairly puts Google at a disadvantage and calls into question why the prosecution happened in the first place.
Anything you have written can be used against you. So basically the more documents and evidence you store the worse your position is.
Simply not true.
Like I get that you are echoing the (good) advice to never talk to police, but contemporaneous notes can save your bacon if you are acting in good faith. There's a reason former lawyers tend to meticulously note take at meetings.
Particularly if you aren't in a decision making position, taking notes is a CYA move, especially if you think the company is doing something potentially shady.
Why do you think every business issues receipts and invoices? It's not a tax thing, it's a legal thing. These little pieces of paper can cover the business's ass if you later claim they overcharged for a service not performed or good not delivered.
Like I get that you are echoing the (good) advice to never talk to police, but contemporaneous notes can save your bacon if you are acting in good faith. There's a reason former lawyers tend to meticulously note take at meetings.
Particularly if you aren't in a decision making position, taking notes is a CYA move, especially if you think the company is doing something potentially shady.
Why do you think every business issues receipts and invoices? It's not a tax thing, it's a legal thing. These little pieces of paper can cover the business's ass if you later claim they overcharged for a service not performed or good not delivered.
> after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or
It's different because the law covers recorded information, and the law cares about provable intent. Worth pointing out that this law is old with a lot of modern intepretations be wary of treating this literal text as the only substance of it
It's different because the law covers recorded information, and the law cares about provable intent. Worth pointing out that this law is old with a lot of modern intepretations be wary of treating this literal text as the only substance of it
So basically all phone calls and video calls. They are recorded, then transmitted digitally, then played back. The fact that they don't get saved is a tiny technicality
You’ll find that the words “knowingly” and “intent” are rather important in both statue and case law.
The law doesn’t operate in some kind of “gotcha” or “this one trick” manner. Judges can see through this crap relatively easily.
The law doesn’t operate in some kind of “gotcha” or “this one trick” manner. Judges can see through this crap relatively easily.
what crap is that? Chat online is a simulation of chat in the real world. real world chat is not recorded.
Chat online is communications in the real world.
The main questions are around who is obligated to retain the messages and for how long.
The main questions are around who is obligated to retain the messages and for how long.
I'm not obligated to keep a recording of every real world conversation I have.
Well you should ask a lawyer to explain to you the concept of a "document retention policy" long before you do anything that could possibly get you involved in litigation or an investigation.
My point, which everyone seems to be missing, is, if a judged said "You must record all your conversations" I feel like most people on this board would say the judge crossed a line. That being required to record all your conversations, as in carry around a recording device and make sure every conversation you have is recorded, conversation in hallways, conversations in the bathroom, conversations at the gym, conversations at lunch, dinner, in bed (maybe you're dating a co-worker), conversations in meetings. I feel strongly people would object that's not ok, not constitutional, 1984ish, etc...
I get that I should talk to a lawyer. That's not the point. The point is, IMO, recording chat is over the line. email yes, documents yes, chat and video conferencing no. People would find a judge ordering all employees direct face to face conversations being recorded to be unacceptable. To me chat = slightly facilitated face to face conversions. To me it's a slippery slope. If chat is ok today, video conferencing tomorrow, then demand total surveillance next because it will be technically possible (already is). That fact that it's trivial to record chat ignores that it shouldn't be required to be recorded in the first place.
People here are okay with because is popular to hate on Google. You're next.
I get that I should talk to a lawyer. That's not the point. The point is, IMO, recording chat is over the line. email yes, documents yes, chat and video conferencing no. People would find a judge ordering all employees direct face to face conversations being recorded to be unacceptable. To me chat = slightly facilitated face to face conversions. To me it's a slippery slope. If chat is ok today, video conferencing tomorrow, then demand total surveillance next because it will be technically possible (already is). That fact that it's trivial to record chat ignores that it shouldn't be required to be recorded in the first place.
People here are okay with because is popular to hate on Google. You're next.
It is totally common in business for certain broad topics of conversation to need to be retained for legal purposes, especially written communications.
What makes you think "chat" is any different than email?
My (IANAL) understanding is that even if a Judge didn't order it explicitly, writing something like "let's not discuss this in email, meet me in the hallway" can look very bad in retrospect. Similarly, explicitly turning off chat transcripts (or failing to turn them on) when required may not be a good strategy, as this article shows.
From the article: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37 "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 [...] (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment."
What makes you think "chat" is any different than email?
My (IANAL) understanding is that even if a Judge didn't order it explicitly, writing something like "let's not discuss this in email, meet me in the hallway" can look very bad in retrospect. Similarly, explicitly turning off chat transcripts (or failing to turn them on) when required may not be a good strategy, as this article shows.
From the article: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37 "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 [...] (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment."
It's pretty easy to brush off (supposed) burdensome requests during discovery. There's no slippery slope in this context.
[deleted]
Doing potentially illegal business verbally with no written trail is a well-known strategy. It is still concealment if those participating do not tell when interrogated.
Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.
Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.
>Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.
No. When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, which is more than just knowing litigation is possible, that's when they need to avoid destroying information relating to the litigation.
Examples of situations that fit are: 1. when they know a suit has been filed 2. when the company is contemplating litigation - i.e. when they have asked for a legal opinion, started doing some groundwork, looked into feasibility of suit etc.
No. When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, which is more than just knowing litigation is possible, that's when they need to avoid destroying information relating to the litigation.
Examples of situations that fit are: 1. when they know a suit has been filed 2. when the company is contemplating litigation - i.e. when they have asked for a legal opinion, started doing some groundwork, looked into feasibility of suit etc.
Another example is when the government already told you to begin retaining evidence, which is what happened in 2019, but Google ignored that.
> They didn't ask employees to destroy evidence but to avoid retaining evidence in the first place.
It certainly sounds like destruction. The words are written, then the words are encoded as text, stored, and sent, and then at the end, discarded.
It certainly sounds like destruction. The words are written, then the words are encoded as text, stored, and sent, and then at the end, discarded.
If the chat is E2E encrypted this isn't really the case. There is no storage.
There is storage, it's just that what's stored is encrypted with a key that only the clients possess. A court could very well order the party involved to turn over the encryption keys.
And before someone pops in with "but what if they deleted the key?" - well, then for all intents and purposes, they've also deleted the document, in violation of the legal hold.
This is about Google Chat (in Google Workspace) which doesn't have E2E.
"They didn't ask employees to destroy evidence but to avoid retaining evidence in the first place."
Once a company knows its going to be sued it has a legal obligation under federal rules to preserve evidence. Google deliberately ignored that requirement.
Nice try.
Once a company knows its going to be sued it has a legal obligation under federal rules to preserve evidence. Google deliberately ignored that requirement.
Nice try.
Maybe they are required to preserve existing documents, but not required to create new evidence against themselves.
> Maybe they are required to preserve existing documents, but not required to create new evidence against themselves.
When they do a chat, that creates evidence. When the chat is deleted, evidence is destroyed. (This isn't the first case they’ve been sanctioned over this behavior, either.)
When they do a chat, that creates evidence. When the chat is deleted, evidence is destroyed. (This isn't the first case they’ve been sanctioned over this behavior, either.)
No, they are required to retain the records pertaining to the litigation.
This isn't a loophole. Google is in the wrong here.
This isn't a loophole. Google is in the wrong here.
Don’t want to create evidence? Stop chatting about how to potentially violate the law.
> They didn't ask employees to destroy evidence but to avoid retaining evidence in the first place.
Once evidence exists, not retaining it involves deleting it. So you’ve simply rephrased what they are accused of and framed it as if that is a denial.
Which, you know, is kind of all there is to spin with when there are no favorable facts, but why spin for Google?
Once evidence exists, not retaining it involves deleting it. So you’ve simply rephrased what they are accused of and framed it as if that is a denial.
Which, you know, is kind of all there is to spin with when there are no favorable facts, but why spin for Google?
Regulated industries just require saving of communications. It seems like maybe that should be the standard.
Do you think that should extend to recording some or all meetings at a company?
A group of executives meets. Should that meeting be recorded, even if it’s not a “hybrid” meeting and entirely happened in person?
A group of engineers meets. How about that one?
This seems like a hard issue. If the court creates a precedent here, I expect any sensitive discussions that might have any sort of future liability will just go back to verbal conversations (if allowed), and then aren’t we back to where we are today, with no record?
A group of executives meets. Should that meeting be recorded, even if it’s not a “hybrid” meeting and entirely happened in person?
A group of engineers meets. How about that one?
This seems like a hard issue. If the court creates a precedent here, I expect any sensitive discussions that might have any sort of future liability will just go back to verbal conversations (if allowed), and then aren’t we back to where we are today, with no record?
> Do you think that should extend to recording some or all meetings at a company?
That depends. Did the court order that to happen? (Like in this situation!)
If so, then yes, the company should follow the lawful order of the court.
And if such an order is unlawful, then they should appeal it, and do what the appeal court orders them to do.
That depends. Did the court order that to happen? (Like in this situation!)
If so, then yes, the company should follow the lawful order of the court.
And if such an order is unlawful, then they should appeal it, and do what the appeal court orders them to do.
There does seem a big difference between requiring things to be recorded and simply requiring that people don't actively take action to prevent recording.
> A group of executives meets. Should that meeting be recorded, even if it’s not a “hybrid” meeting and entirely happened in person?
If they are discussing matters related to the company, then it should at least be minuted.
The counterpart to "don't take notes on a criminal conspiracy" is "why, if you're not involved in a criminal conspiracy, are you not taking notes?"
(This has become absolutely endemic in UK government where all kinds of things happen in encrypted whatsapp groups .. which are then selectively leaked by one of the attendees.)
If they are discussing matters related to the company, then it should at least be minuted.
The counterpart to "don't take notes on a criminal conspiracy" is "why, if you're not involved in a criminal conspiracy, are you not taking notes?"
(This has become absolutely endemic in UK government where all kinds of things happen in encrypted whatsapp groups .. which are then selectively leaked by one of the attendees.)
If that becomes true, both remote work AND offshoring may soon be increasingly rare at Google.
actively taking steps to destroy data is very different from simply not creating the data in the first place.
I get that you're eager to create a slippery slope, but you're just showing your ass.
I get that you're eager to create a slippery slope, but you're just showing your ass.
> Regulated industries just require saving of communications
This isn't a regulated industries issue: all parties to actual or reasonably anticipated litigation are required to preserve evidence.
This isn't a regulated industries issue: all parties to actual or reasonably anticipated litigation are required to preserve evidence.
That is not the same thing. Stock brokerages are simply required to store every bit of written communication for years, for example. As I understand it there are also circumstances where they’re forced to record things if they’re not written.
Not as a “reasonably anticipated” but just always.
I think companies that manage lots of private user data should probably be held to the same standards.
Not as a “reasonably anticipated” but just always.
I think companies that manage lots of private user data should probably be held to the same standards.
Yes, both things exist. But the Google issue being discussed is not about being in a highly-regulated industry, it's about reasonably anticipated litigation where they had actual notice of an investigation of particular issues with the potential for litigation, and even an explicit notice that this triggered a requirement to preserve all relevant communication and documents, and there specific actions with that knowledge.
The subtitle is really weird:
> Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued.
How does deleting evidence make you “the best”?
Also, obstruction of justice charges aren’t exactly unprecedented. We need obstruction of justice to be harsher than the crime itself to discourage blatant hiding of evidence
> Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued.
How does deleting evidence make you “the best”?
Also, obstruction of justice charges aren’t exactly unprecedented. We need obstruction of justice to be harsher than the crime itself to discourage blatant hiding of evidence
It's weird writing in the article to include that.
In the article this comes from a completely different argument in a completely different point against a MS argument that Google has violated the Sherman act in the same way MS did.
The quote is from Google attorney who pointed out that all the companies that had signed exclusive deals with Google had testified that they chose Google because it was the best.
It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the chat history argument.
In the article this comes from a completely different argument in a completely different point against a MS argument that Google has violated the Sherman act in the same way MS did.
The quote is from Google attorney who pointed out that all the companies that had signed exclusive deals with Google had testified that they chose Google because it was the best.
It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the chat history argument.
I felt the same way, it is almost as if they have a blog-generating AI prompt that says something along the lines of "make the subheading a provocative counterpoint".
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
> How does deleting evidence make you “the best”?
Google is full of really clever people who know how clever they are. The government should just give up now and Google should just win by default.
Google is full of really clever people who know how clever they are. The government should just give up now and Google should just win by default.
In fact, Google should prosecute the US government.
If the government wanted the entirety of google would be Boeinged tomorrow.
The reverse is not true.
There's power in information, but physical power trumps that.
The reverse is not true.
There's power in information, but physical power trumps that.
The allegation in the article is not that google destroyed internal chats, but rather had instructed staff to turn off the chat saving feature before having such chats. Just as inculpatory, but not the same thing:
"Google was accused of enacting a policy instructing employees to turn chat history off by default when discussing sensitive topics, including Google's revenue-sharing and mobile application distribution agreements. These agreements, the DOJ and state attorneys general argued, work to maintain Google's monopoly over search."
>Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued.
the article doesn't seem to cover this subhead, but I'm guessing this is a reference not to failing to keep records of their anti-competitive practices, but to something along the lines of "google only seems like a monopoly because they're such a good competitor they wind up with all the customers"
"Google was accused of enacting a policy instructing employees to turn chat history off by default when discussing sensitive topics, including Google's revenue-sharing and mobile application distribution agreements. These agreements, the DOJ and state attorneys general argued, work to maintain Google's monopoly over search."
>Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued.
the article doesn't seem to cover this subhead, but I'm guessing this is a reference not to failing to keep records of their anti-competitive practices, but to something along the lines of "google only seems like a monopoly because they're such a good competitor they wind up with all the customers"
That's not correct. The allegation in the article is that Google was under a legal obligation to preserve the chats, and that Google repeatedly told the government it was saving internal chats while repeatedly destroying them.
Being able to privately discuss matters is apparently a freedom only afforded to personalities that are comfortable speaking voice in real-time.
The same policy but in the form of "discuss these things over the phone" would not just be unremarkable, it's the norm.
The failure to extend the same treatment to unlogged text chats is discriminatory to people with disabilities and different personalities. ... and it's at odd with the underlying principle that when you know you're subject to litigation you're required to retain records you created but you're not obligated to create new records.
The same policy but in the form of "discuss these things over the phone" would not just be unremarkable, it's the norm.
The failure to extend the same treatment to unlogged text chats is discriminatory to people with disabilities and different personalities. ... and it's at odd with the underlying principle that when you know you're subject to litigation you're required to retain records you created but you're not obligated to create new records.
You don’t have that right when you’re under criminal investigation. It doesn’t matter if it’s a phone call, the government will get a warrant to wiretap you legally and then use the evidence in court to prosecute you.
This is civil litigation, not criminal. This is also not related to a wiretap.
And even if it had been to have no obligation to _create_ records even then.
Google's policy is isomorphic to "don't discuss these legally sensitive matters except via the phone" and the DOJ wants sanctions because no one took and retained notes from the calls.
Except keeping those conversations on the telephone and not taking notes is unambiguously legal and a common practice... In google's case "phone" is replaced with unlogged chat.
The differential treatment is discriminatory. The ephemeral chat serves an identical purpose to a phone call, but is compatible with people with different communications needs.
One need not assume bad faith for wanting to have discussions off the record: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." casual comments, jokes, confusion, or exploration taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. Just the cost of having to review more potentially relevant material in discovery can be devastating.
People also cannot come to understand their legal obligations unless they're free to discuss them without fear that any little misstatement or bad phrasing will turn around and burn them-- and these discussions don't happen exclusively with lawyers in the room as behaving legally and ethically is everyone's responsibility (in spite of what lawyers in their effort for full employment sometimes want you to believe!).
And even if it had been to have no obligation to _create_ records even then.
Google's policy is isomorphic to "don't discuss these legally sensitive matters except via the phone" and the DOJ wants sanctions because no one took and retained notes from the calls.
Except keeping those conversations on the telephone and not taking notes is unambiguously legal and a common practice... In google's case "phone" is replaced with unlogged chat.
The differential treatment is discriminatory. The ephemeral chat serves an identical purpose to a phone call, but is compatible with people with different communications needs.
One need not assume bad faith for wanting to have discussions off the record: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." casual comments, jokes, confusion, or exploration taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. Just the cost of having to review more potentially relevant material in discovery can be devastating.
People also cannot come to understand their legal obligations unless they're free to discuss them without fear that any little misstatement or bad phrasing will turn around and burn them-- and these discussions don't happen exclusively with lawyers in the room as behaving legally and ethically is everyone's responsibility (in spite of what lawyers in their effort for full employment sometimes want you to believe!).
As a nearly deaf person, I want to highlight this point. People are very casual about assuming phones are for everyone.
Nowadays I can use an autotranscription service, but obviously its privacy level is very different.
Nowadays I can use an autotranscription service, but obviously its privacy level is very different.
Sorry, did I commit fraud by discussing business over dinner without a stenographer present?
If you’re ordered to retain communications, sure. And in a civil court, it’s fair to conclude adversely if a party’s messages disappear suspiciously. But by the government? No.
If you’re ordered to retain communications, sure. And in a civil court, it’s fair to conclude adversely if a party’s messages disappear suspiciously. But by the government? No.
The argument being made is that Google execs switched over to Signal when they wanted to discuss the crimes they were committing.
They weren't always using Signal. They had many thousands of emails and other communications that were preserved and used as evidence.
They weren't always using Signal. They had many thousands of emails and other communications that were preserved and used as evidence.
Fair enough. The bar for intent should be high, though.
I use FaceTime Audio frequently for calls. Once I was asked to testify in respect of an investment fraud I prompted my firm to report. I got grilled for not being able to provide complete call logs. My concern is criminalising incomplete records creates the precedent of requiring them at all times.
I use FaceTime Audio frequently for calls. Once I was asked to testify in respect of an investment fraud I prompted my firm to report. I got grilled for not being able to provide complete call logs. My concern is criminalising incomplete records creates the precedent of requiring them at all times.
In my experience, FaceTime Audio has time, date, and duration of calls, the same as for cellular calls. Neither cellular calls nor FaceTime calls have transcripts or recording functionality standalone on iOS or macOS, so your context is unclear, and your inability to provide complete call logs would definitely raise some questions in my opinion, although isn’t a red flag in and of itself.
> FaceTime Audio has time, date, and duration of calls
If you know how to access these records from a year ago, I’M genuinely curious for the answer, because I couldn’t for the life of me figure that out.
If you know how to access these records from a year ago, I’M genuinely curious for the answer, because I couldn’t for the life of me figure that out.
The Phone app’s Recents tab on iOS, as well as the FaceTime app on macOS should have call log options. If you have iCloud backups enabled, Phone and FaceTime syncing is enabled by default, and if so, you can likely also get the info on iCloud.com unless you have the “Access iCloud Data on the Web” option disabled under Settings app -> Apple ID -> iCloud.
For what it’s worth anecdotally, I have info in my call log going back to 2022. If you have local backups via iTunes and/or Files app, you may also be able to find call logs. Apps such as iMazing Phone Evidence and other tools from that company are able to explore local backups and physically connected devices.
For what it’s worth anecdotally, I have info in my call log going back to 2022. If you have local backups via iTunes and/or Files app, you may also be able to find call logs. Apps such as iMazing Phone Evidence and other tools from that company are able to explore local backups and physically connected devices.
> Phone app’s Recents tab on iOS, as well as the FaceTime app on macOS should have call log options. If you have iCloud backups enabled, Phone and FaceTime syncing is enabled by default
Recents only goes back a few days. I don’t see Phone or FaceTime as options in my iCloud back-up, and there is no folder in Files corresponding to them. (Are you referring to iCloud Drive? I don’t have it enabled.)
Granted, there is a good chance I disabled something somewhere, because I’m not a fan of a tech company having more information than it needs on me.
Recents only goes back a few days. I don’t see Phone or FaceTime as options in my iCloud back-up, and there is no folder in Files corresponding to them. (Are you referring to iCloud Drive? I don’t have it enabled.)
Granted, there is a good chance I disabled something somewhere, because I’m not a fan of a tech company having more information than it needs on me.
I think your experience is normal. I have Advanced Data Protection enabled and all default iCloud backup settings enabled, so I may have a more inclusive backup than is the norm.
> I don’t see Phone or FaceTime as options in my iCloud back-up
It’s under Settings, then the top navigation [your Apple ID name] section above Airplane Mode which is the Apple ID settings -> iCloud -> Apps using iCloud -> Show All.
This Apple Support page may be helpful to you and others.
> Locate backups of your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch
> Find a list of your iOS or iPadOS backups on your Mac, PC, and iOS or iPadOS device. Learn how to delete backups, copy them, and more.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/108809
> I don’t see Phone or FaceTime as options in my iCloud back-up
It’s under Settings, then the top navigation [your Apple ID name] section above Airplane Mode which is the Apple ID settings -> iCloud -> Apps using iCloud -> Show All.
This Apple Support page may be helpful to you and others.
> Locate backups of your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch
> Find a list of your iOS or iPadOS backups on your Mac, PC, and iOS or iPadOS device. Learn how to delete backups, copy them, and more.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/108809
Maybe the execs got tired of having to install yet another messenger, when the previous one gets deprecated?
I assume this is a joke pointing to Google's chat app situation, but regardless here is my serious answer:
I don't think the executives need to do anything themselves at a company like Google -- whether it is their (managed) phone or laptop, likely the IT would install and set up these things and everything would be ready to use. If not they have assistants who can do the chores.
I don't think the executives need to do anything themselves at a company like Google -- whether it is their (managed) phone or laptop, likely the IT would install and set up these things and everything would be ready to use. If not they have assistants who can do the chores.
I use Signal by default for every piece of communication that I can. Am I somehow held to a different standard just because I was paranoid about surveillance from the start?
That seems wrong.
That seems wrong.
> Am I somehow held to a different standard just because I was paranoid about surveillance from the start?
Yes, how else could it work? For example if you have a policy to destroy CCTV footage at the end of the day then it’s not illegal to do that. If you have a policy to keep CCTV footage but when the police come and ask you some questions you delete it because you know that it contains evidence of a crime, that’s destruction of evidence. It’s not illegal to delete things, otherwise the world would run out of storage, it’s illegal to delete things to knowingly impede an investigation.
Yes, how else could it work? For example if you have a policy to destroy CCTV footage at the end of the day then it’s not illegal to do that. If you have a policy to keep CCTV footage but when the police come and ask you some questions you delete it because you know that it contains evidence of a crime, that’s destruction of evidence. It’s not illegal to delete things, otherwise the world would run out of storage, it’s illegal to delete things to knowingly impede an investigation.
Fair enough.
I'm never talking to anyone over insecure channels again.
I'm never talking to anyone over insecure channels again.
How is technical nature of your communication with others at all relevant? The court can order you to hand over the encryption keys, and if you destroy them, then it's the same thing as destroying the communication.
> I'm never talking to anyone over insecure channels again.
You can and should do this. No one will punish you for it in court unless you refuse to give them evidence that they have legally obtained.
I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you.
Let's say you murder someone with a knife, and you keep that bloody knife in a safe labeled, "Potential Evidence of Murder". A judge orders you to open the safe, and instead you incinerate it and everything inside it.
You wouldn't be punished for keeping your jewels in other safes. You'd be punished for committing a crime and then preventing a court from getting the evidence.
You can and should do this. No one will punish you for it in court unless you refuse to give them evidence that they have legally obtained.
I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you.
Let's say you murder someone with a knife, and you keep that bloody knife in a safe labeled, "Potential Evidence of Murder". A judge orders you to open the safe, and instead you incinerate it and everything inside it.
You wouldn't be punished for keeping your jewels in other safes. You'd be punished for committing a crime and then preventing a court from getting the evidence.
It's always weird when some tech nerds think they have some magic wand which avoids legal controls. A judge would just smack you down hard if this ever came to court, and your argument of well I special exception here due to technical barriers will just end up with you getting an adverse judgement or contempt charge depending on how flagrant it and if you had prior legal orders to the contrary.
If you're telling a judge "I specifically hide all written communication that I'm legally required to hold and produce so that you can't see it" you're gonna have a bad time.
[deleted]
Wouldn't be surprised. One startup I worked at launched their entire own separate private chat app/company and all of the execs and early employees used exclusively that software to communicate with each other, rather than email or the company slack.
If it was anything like the one I was at that did this, it’s because they had a weekly meeting where they reviewed the most salient points from the conversations taking place in slack and email.
So you want to say that everyone (including individuals) should keep all their communications saved so that it will be easier to prosecute them?
Everyone should get in trouble if they are instructed by a court to not hide evidence, and then explicitly take action to hide evidence.
So what? Everyone everywhere does that about sensitive stuff. How many times have you heard- call me about it I don’t want to put it in writing.
So you believe our legal system should not punish executives of a company that is:
- publicly traded
- more powerful than many entire countries
- committing crimes
...when those executives explicitly switched to disappearing messaging in order to cover up those crimes?
Context matters. I don't want to live in a world where people can avoid prosecution just by deleting evidence.
- publicly traded
- more powerful than many entire countries
- committing crimes
...when those executives explicitly switched to disappearing messaging in order to cover up those crimes?
Context matters. I don't want to live in a world where people can avoid prosecution just by deleting evidence.
I'm utterly appalled at how vigorously people are defending Google here. These are not the good guys. These aren't deserving of extra protection from the rabble. They can defend themselves in court with the billions of dollars they have. The kind of power and influence Google wields requires a higher standard. It's not being punished for success. It's ensuring that success doesn't allow them to subvert the law whenever they want. God forbid we have a functioning justice system anywhere.
> These aren't deserving of extra protection from the rabble
Agree. But they shouldn’t be denied any protections we plebeians would expect and be afforded.
Agree. But they shouldn’t be denied any protections we plebeians would expect and be afforded.
A lot of them aren't so much actually defending Google here but eventually show they either a) think they're just smarter than the entire legal profession, or like eth_ below just hate the idea of law/government in general.
On the relative scale of corporations in America, to me they are far and away the good guys.
Punishing them solely for their success is unfair. If power accumulated through capturing natural monopolies is the issue, then we need to address that directly with public funding of open source and decentralized alternatives that can become the market standard. Not punish people who fill the gaps the public left, by effectively providing essential services.
I think you really ought to justify your use of the terminology "natural monopoly". To the extent that such a thing exists, is this not exactly what we have anti-trust laws to prevent?
It seems to me that we can, have, and should punish people for success if that success is likely to lead to well known kinds of market failure, and that such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water).
Certainly, you could make the same "natural monopoly" argument against just about every serious anti-trust action that has taken place in the past. It didn't work then and I don't think its going to work now.
Pretending that closed platforms that exist on computer networks (and are not themselves networks) somehow makes this all different is not very convincing. Network effects, as we've come to understand the term, are not new, and have existed before computer networks. To the extent they exist, it's evidence of need for intervention because of a clear failure of a market to self regulate (what some may call a "natural" or just a regular monopoly) and maintain a competitive market, not evidence that everything is okay.
I also seriously take issue with the idea that Google provides an "essential service". Power, food, water, and you could make an argument for computer and communications infrastructure, are "essential". Google search is not. If it disappeared, society would soldier on and we would all be fine. At worst it would be a minor inconvenience for users and a headache for IT departments and developers.
It seems to me that we can, have, and should punish people for success if that success is likely to lead to well known kinds of market failure, and that such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water).
Certainly, you could make the same "natural monopoly" argument against just about every serious anti-trust action that has taken place in the past. It didn't work then and I don't think its going to work now.
Pretending that closed platforms that exist on computer networks (and are not themselves networks) somehow makes this all different is not very convincing. Network effects, as we've come to understand the term, are not new, and have existed before computer networks. To the extent they exist, it's evidence of need for intervention because of a clear failure of a market to self regulate (what some may call a "natural" or just a regular monopoly) and maintain a competitive market, not evidence that everything is okay.
I also seriously take issue with the idea that Google provides an "essential service". Power, food, water, and you could make an argument for computer and communications infrastructure, are "essential". Google search is not. If it disappeared, society would soldier on and we would all be fine. At worst it would be a minor inconvenience for users and a headache for IT departments and developers.
I think anti-trust laws are unjust for precisely that reason: they punish people solely for being successful.
I also offered an alternative solution to private interests capturing natural monopolies: the state subsidizing a public option that can do that. My preference would be state funding for the development of open source software and decentralized platforms that can substitute for proprietary software and centrally managed platforms.
In fact, the state is ideally situated to fund this kind of public goods development, as it is the only legal entity with a broad enough tax collective apparatus to capture the gains from such investments.
As for essential/non-essential, perhaps you're right in terms of terminology. In any case, internet search is a widely used and extremely valuable service that enhances quality of life.
>such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water).
Something being non-controversial doesn't make it right. It was uncontroversial anti-libertarian ideology that found a way to justify imprisoning hundreds of thousands of elderly people for a year during the COVID pandemic:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5969825
I also offered an alternative solution to private interests capturing natural monopolies: the state subsidizing a public option that can do that. My preference would be state funding for the development of open source software and decentralized platforms that can substitute for proprietary software and centrally managed platforms.
In fact, the state is ideally situated to fund this kind of public goods development, as it is the only legal entity with a broad enough tax collective apparatus to capture the gains from such investments.
As for essential/non-essential, perhaps you're right in terms of terminology. In any case, internet search is a widely used and extremely valuable service that enhances quality of life.
>such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water).
Something being non-controversial doesn't make it right. It was uncontroversial anti-libertarian ideology that found a way to justify imprisoning hundreds of thousands of elderly people for a year during the COVID pandemic:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5969825
So this wasn't a natural monopoly because the high cost of entry isn't the sole or even arguably primary barrier to competition, and that's not the issue.
Competing with google in many areas is effectively impossible, due to their patent portfolio.
Then that is the problem that should be addressed.
Last time I heard it ppl were almost killed and whistle blowers were assassinated by suicide.
No airplanes here but the same shady evil practice.
This is why they probably removed the "don't be evil" from their code of conduct.
No airplanes here but the same shady evil practice.
This is why they probably removed the "don't be evil" from their code of conduct.
> Last time I heard it ppl were almost killed and whistle blowers were assassinated by suicide.
Not for nothing, but as a paramedic, the number of patients who've sworn black and blue that they're "no longer suicidal", "no longer a threat", "if anything happens to me, it definitely wasn't suicide" who ... went on to attempt or commit suicide in very short order is non-trivial.
Not for nothing, but as a paramedic, the number of patients who've sworn black and blue that they're "no longer suicidal", "no longer a threat", "if anything happens to me, it definitely wasn't suicide" who ... went on to attempt or commit suicide in very short order is non-trivial.
That only works in dreamland. Banks and traders must record all calls by law, for example. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/sec-cftc-fine-11-banks-18b-...
> The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined 11 Wall Street banks and brokerages more than $1.8 billion in a long-anticipated move to curb finance employees’ use of unapproved messaging platforms and companies’ failures to keep accurate records of those communications, the regulators said Tuesday.
But it's not a "cool" tech company so you don't hear about it on HN.
> The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined 11 Wall Street banks and brokerages more than $1.8 billion in a long-anticipated move to curb finance employees’ use of unapproved messaging platforms and companies’ failures to keep accurate records of those communications, the regulators said Tuesday.
But it's not a "cool" tech company so you don't hear about it on HN.
> If you’re ordered to retain communications, sure. And in a civil court, it’s fair to conclude adversely if a party’s messages disappear suspiciously.
This is civil court.
This is civil court.
Note that Google was sanctioned last year for similar conducted in the anti-trust litigation over the Play Store as they are now facing sanctions over in the anti-trust litigation over adtech.
https://sfstandard.com/2023/03/28/judge-sanctions-google-for...
https://sfstandard.com/2023/03/28/judge-sanctions-google-for...
ELI5: why is there any expectation for corporations to keep chat logs or emails long term? Is there some legal requirement I don't understand?
Google records chat by default. But it appears they had a policy if they were going to discuss something that could look bad if subpoenaed that chat recording should be turned off before discussing it.
No, this is not true. By default, starting a private chat with another employee defaulted to “history off” (as far as I can remember; I left Google >1 year ago now).
Right, but I'm not clear, is that actually illegal? I've seen similar policies at many companies.
They were under order from the court to preserve communications, and changed their corporate policy to use channels that auto-deleted communications when talking about things that they might not want the court to see.
When you're in or reasonably expect to be in litigation, you have an obligation to preserve evidence for discovery.
You do not have an obligation to create records for that purpose, however, only to preserve what you do create.
It's ridiculous that a private company can be forced to make private discussions available to be used against themselves.
Google/Alphabet is a public company?….
They are a "private sector" company in the sense that they are not a "public sector" (i.e., government) entity.
They are a "publicy traded" company (like Tesla) because their shares are available on the stock market for non-qualified investors, and not "privately held" (like SpaceX).
They are a "publicy traded" company (like Tesla) because their shares are available on the stock market for non-qualified investors, and not "privately held" (like SpaceX).
Read the article
I just read the article and it doesn’t directly answer the question.
Why would you be allowed to have unrecorded conversations in the office? Doesn’t that show the same intent?
Why would you be allowed to have unrecorded conversations in the office? Doesn’t that show the same intent?
Is the default to record all audio conversations in the office? No.
Is the default to record all chat conversations? Yes.
Then Google enacted a policy to have employees turn off the recording of chat conversations if they were going to discuss certain topics.
Is the default to record all chat conversations? Yes.
Then Google enacted a policy to have employees turn off the recording of chat conversations if they were going to discuss certain topics.
I've been primarily using end to end encrypted self destructing chats for maybe 20 years at this point, especially for work stuff. Why should other people's poor data hygiene put my data at risk?
Its really simple, if you're in litigation, you are legally obligated not to destroy written records, and produce them based on discovery requests.
If you delete chat, that is destroying written records.
If you delete chat, that is destroying written records.
Isn't Google always in litigation?
Are all written records supposed to be preserved when you're in litigation, or just relevant records?
Disclosure issues, and destruction of records, are prominent issues in two UK scandals just now: the Contaminated Blookd Scandal, and the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Are all written records supposed to be preserved when you're in litigation, or just relevant records?
Disclosure issues, and destruction of records, are prominent issues in two UK scandals just now: the Contaminated Blookd Scandal, and the Post Office Horizon scandal.
It's only relevant records, not all records.
"your honor, none of these chats you can't see were relevant."
That's one of the arguments Google tried. Good luck.
That's one of the arguments Google tried. Good luck.
So you've been destroying recorded information as a policy; that's fine, but the rule is essentially that if you know you are being sued and your chats are relevant, you need to take steps to stop the destruction.
Send Pichai to jail for a week and watch the CEOs of the biggest companies fall over themselves to comply with court instructions.
Dont count on it, recent example of a Judge mulling sanctions after blatant disregard of Court order and multiple counts of contempt was 9x $1000 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-nyc-hush-money-trial-... Courts work in different mode when dealing with the rich.
Violating a judge's gag order is, at most, contempt of court which has a max penalty of 30 days confinement and a $1000 fine. Pichai is flirting with destruction of evidence, which is a criminal felony with consequences of up to 20 years in prison. If he were a "normal person", he'd likely be facing this exact charge right now.
To those arguing about the semantics of deletion vs. never having saved it in the first place, do you believe the DOJ would make this claim without having considered such trivialities?
Yes. The DOJ sometimes (if not often) overreaches because they are taking a shot. These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories.
Flipping this around, do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities?
Flipping this around, do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities?
> do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities?
Well, I would expect Google's legal time to advise employees not to do anything illegal, yet here we are.
Well, I would expect Google's legal time to advise employees not to do anything illegal, yet here we are.
> do you think Google's legal team, which is probably equally qualified and vastly more well paid (and with a lot more to lose if they're wrong), would advise employees to do this if they hadn't considered such trivialities?
Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is. Competent people will make surprising decisions under pressure.
Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is. Competent people will make surprising decisions under pressure.
> Depends on what their risk-reward appetite is.
That's the same for DoJ. In fact, for them it's all wins and no loses. In the worst case their argument just doesn't stick.
That's the same for DoJ. In fact, for them it's all wins and no loses. In the worst case their argument just doesn't stick.
Google has great lawyers. They don't flinch or buckle.
>These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories.
There is already a lot of precedent around policies related to spoliation which is why it would be a surprise to me if Google's legal team actually did advise employees to do this as a blanket policy. It seems more likely that they said they could do it for things that are not potentially relevant to litigation and the execs took it as far as they wanted to go.
There is already a lot of precedent around policies related to spoliation which is why it would be a surprise to me if Google's legal team actually did advise employees to do this as a blanket policy. It seems more likely that they said they could do it for things that are not potentially relevant to litigation and the execs took it as far as they wanted to go.
The DOJ will make whatever claim they feel like to extend their surveillance apparatus as far and wide as possible.
DOJ is a political organization - of course they will selectively prosecute and weigh risks based off intended political impacts.
What Google does makes sense. If I were running a company I would also prefer to auto-delete internal communications not to leave any traces. It is stupid to collect data that will be used against you. It actually surprises me that there are companies who preserve evidence against them even when not required by law.
And by the way, Telegram chats can auto-delete messages.
And by the way, Telegram chats can auto-delete messages.
It's stupid that these communications are such a liability. Most corporations make the same comments, but so long as they're over video chat or telephone they're inadmissible. The same over text is somehow admissable, and read without any context. It's like that old joke about a bad read in court - "Your honor, the witness said 'no, don't, stop'" "She didn't say it that way!"
The problem is that they might have been required by law to keep the data
If "keep the data" means "keep exsiting data" then disabling logging for new conversations seems ok.
> the DOJ believed the court should "conclude that communicating with history off shows anti-competitive intent to hide information because they knew they were violating antitrust law."
This is too arbitrary. It is like saying that everyone who uses secret chats and auto-deleted photos in Telegram is a criminal trying to hide the evidence.
> the DOJ believed the court should "conclude that communicating with history off shows anti-competitive intent to hide information because they knew they were violating antitrust law."
This is too arbitrary. It is like saying that everyone who uses secret chats and auto-deleted photos in Telegram is a criminal trying to hide the evidence.
> If "keep the data" means "keep exsiting data" then disabling logging for new conversations seems ok.
Google has two modes of conversation history retention. The first, the default, is "delete after 24h". The second, which is opt-in only, and apparently extremely rarely used, is "delete after 30d".
Google attempted to be too tricky for the court. They decided that when place on legal hold, they'd continue to retain the opt-in messages only, and continue to delete the 24h retention messages, which is not what they were told to do.
And then, because they thought they could get away with it, on dozens of occasions they told the DOJ and the courts that they were holding and retaining all message history...
(except the 99% they were still deleting).
Google has two modes of conversation history retention. The first, the default, is "delete after 24h". The second, which is opt-in only, and apparently extremely rarely used, is "delete after 30d".
Google attempted to be too tricky for the court. They decided that when place on legal hold, they'd continue to retain the opt-in messages only, and continue to delete the 24h retention messages, which is not what they were told to do.
And then, because they thought they could get away with it, on dozens of occasions they told the DOJ and the courts that they were holding and retaining all message history...
(except the 99% they were still deleting).
Could you make the same argument about in person chats out loud?
If so, then they better record everything their employees say!
If so, then they better record everything their employees say!
Certainly in the UK there are personal implications for both employees and company directors when breaking certain laws — I have in mind the Bribery Act 2010, which takes an absolutely scorched earth approach to bribery.
Hard to see a reason not to apply that to discoverable communications of public companies too.
Hard to see a reason not to apply that to discoverable communications of public companies too.
> Hard to see a reason not to apply that to discoverable communications of public companies too.
Maybe we don't want to live in a (self-imposed) surveillance state?
Maybe we don't want to live in a (self-imposed) surveillance state?
You end up living in one anyway.
[deleted]
Is there a technical name for the two tiered legal system we have here? The average jack off is never going to get away with destroying evidence, yet the rich, and corporations are given deference all the time for all sorts of shit.
A double standard. Sadly present in most communities since the dawn of humanity.
Are you sure about that?
I think most people can turn off their chat history too? And indeed having a policy of always turning your chat history off for sensitive conversations is unlikely to be sanctioned unlike in this case.
(Google didn't destroy chat logs, they just had history off for them)
(Google didn't destroy chat logs, they just had history off for them)
You may find the judge isn't willing to entertain a game of semantics.
My understanding is it is as simple as the following: Google was ordered to retain information, and afterward specifically changed their policies such that the information would not be retained, and also misled the court that the information was being properly retained.
My understanding is it is as simple as the following: Google was ordered to retain information, and afterward specifically changed their policies such that the information would not be retained, and also misled the court that the information was being properly retained.
>(Google didn't destroy chat logs, they just had history off for them)
This is a weird argument I'm seeing a lot. Isn't this just a variable trigger for deletion? What is the functional difference in the code, I mean?
Using a really, really simple example: If this were stored in a table, I could make a front end button say delete and call that back to the back-end to push the command to delete the cell/row/whatever; I could also set a timer on that with an if/then statement using date of creation and current date and remove the front-end functionality, or have some front-end trigger to turn on the loop to count down the whatever time period, 30 days say.
The end result is the same; the command being sent is [delete], not [don't save this]. I guess without the command the default would be that the data was wiped when the power to the machine went out like with a TI-99, is that what you are thinking of?
This is a weird argument I'm seeing a lot. Isn't this just a variable trigger for deletion? What is the functional difference in the code, I mean?
Using a really, really simple example: If this were stored in a table, I could make a front end button say delete and call that back to the back-end to push the command to delete the cell/row/whatever; I could also set a timer on that with an if/then statement using date of creation and current date and remove the front-end functionality, or have some front-end trigger to turn on the loop to count down the whatever time period, 30 days say.
The end result is the same; the command being sent is [delete], not [don't save this]. I guess without the command the default would be that the data was wiped when the power to the machine went out like with a TI-99, is that what you are thinking of?
No, they don’t delete them, they just don’t keep them after 24 hours, and they keep them before that. No deleting.
for message in messages:
if message.t < 86400
keep(message)
else
continue
// let nature do its thingSo you're saying it works as a reverse system where the default is not to save the chat? That's interesting, I would have assumed adding a database and writing to that database for storage would by necessity involve sending a command to delete in order to remove it from that storage or having some other action taken to wipe the data periodically. I get it if there is no history at all, but there clearly is here.
Where does keep(message) send things? Is that not stored anywhere?
Sorry if this is too complicated, I don't know a lot about chat technically so trying to wrap my head around this.
Where does keep(message) send things? Is that not stored anywhere?
Sorry if this is too complicated, I don't know a lot about chat technically so trying to wrap my head around this.
Sorry, that was a joke. They do have to save them somewhere and then delete them. Nature doesn’t help much. Maybe if you use enough non-ECC RAM or something.
haha ok thanks, I was really scratching my head to think about how that would possibly work. I was going back to idea of writing to a file that overwrote itself in sections but it's good to hear that was a joke.
You have people here defending Google. So, apparently the average jack off is okay with a two tiered system.
I've heard the idiom of "knive policy", sharp at the bottom, dull at the top.
Most of the companies I have run across have some type of ephemeral chat history policy to limit potential legal peril. I always found that to be shady.
It's a matter of convenience and cost.
If you get sued and have to turn every email and chat message over for discovery, that's a lot of information to review to make sure you don't miss anything or share too much. Much easier if you delete everything after 90 days
If you get sued and have to turn every email and chat message over for discovery, that's a lot of information to review to make sure you don't miss anything or share too much. Much easier if you delete everything after 90 days
It’s amazing to me that it cannot be interpreted as obstruction of justice to say “don’t record illegal conversations”
Learn to use the phone when you want an undiscoverable chat, like everyone else on the planet.
Sadly we live in an era in which mass wiretapping, automated transcription and flagging, and parallel construction are not unreasonable concerns.
Wiretapping google executives is two orders of legal magnitude more difficult than sending the company a discovery order.
Technically that's discoverable, too. Just needs to be a national security matter.
[deleted]
RICO to use Software as a legal shield
my corp encourages using slack and said they’re going to purge stuff a couple years old.
I guess we’re entering an era of come at us, fed bros. Iron Mountain is… empty.
I guess we’re entering an era of come at us, fed bros. Iron Mountain is… empty.
Is your corp under court order to preserve written communications? That may be an important difference between them and Google.
The state ought to have no legal right to compel people to keep records of their private communications.
It's a publicly listed company, not a "person".
The company is a contractual arrangement between people, and thus any restrictions on it is a restriction on the rights of the people who own it, i.e. the shareholders.
Being publicly traded only means that a centralized regulatory gatekeeper lifted the prohibition on people trading its securitized equity. This is a right that all companies should have by default, and not a state of affairs that should impose special restrictions on the company.
Being publicly traded only means that a centralized regulatory gatekeeper lifted the prohibition on people trading its securitized equity. This is a right that all companies should have by default, and not a state of affairs that should impose special restrictions on the company.
You've forgotten what "limited liability" means. The contractual arrangement between individuals is usually accounted as a "partnership".
(also, taking the position that it's just a cloud of individuals is worse for them in this case, since that would enable every employee who disabled chat saving to be jailed for contempt of court)
(also, taking the position that it's just a cloud of individuals is worse for them in this case, since that would enable every employee who disabled chat saving to be jailed for contempt of court)
Limited liability only confers extra-contractual benefits to the shareholders in the case of tort against parties which hadn't contracted with the offending party.
Before limited liability laws into effect, limited liability "already emerged through free contracting". [1]
The common law version comes without the problematic 'limited liability for tort' element that limited liability statutes introduce.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240301154801/https://admin.fee...
Before limited liability laws into effect, limited liability "already emerged through free contracting". [1]
The common law version comes without the problematic 'limited liability for tort' element that limited liability statutes introduce.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240301154801/https://admin.fee...
The way to fairly attempt ending a monopoly is not by quelling the power of the monopoly but by removing hurdles for new businesses to start. Then again a monopoly is not always bad if they provide the best product/service.
Somebody many years ago mentioned on HN that a startup wanted to start a bank. After several years of dealing with the bureaucracy for approval they gave up.
Somebody many years ago mentioned on HN that a startup wanted to start a bank. After several years of dealing with the bureaucracy for approval they gave up.
I think this ignores that the monopolies have the power to buy up any new competitors, or to drive them out of business using monopoly power. Regulatory hurdles are only one tool that (can) benefit monopolies.
This is such a laughably naive view. The documents in court __show__ that even microsoft could not move Google out of Apple's defaults. But sure, "removing hurdles for new businesses to start" will obviously solve this.
So hire a thug to kill another thug, what could go wrong?
> The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure *required* Google to suspend its auto-delete practices in mid-2019, when the company reasonably anticipated this litigation.
> Google did not.
> Instead, as described above, Google abdicated its burden to individual custodians to preserve potentially relevant chats. Few, if any, document custodians did so. That is, few custodians, if any, manually changed, on a chat-by-chat basis, the history default from off to on. This means that for nearly four years, Google systematically destroyed an entire category of written communications every 24 hours.