Judge mulls sanctions over Google’s “shocking” destruction of internal chats
Judge mulls sanctions over Google’s “shocking” destruction of internal chats
Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued.
You're viewing a single thread.
You shouldn't use deleted chats as evidence. That is a precedent that should not be a allowed to stand. Its up there with Tor users automatically being criminals.
I'm am sure they can find some evidence even if they have to fall back to interviews of employees.
According to the DOJ, Google destroyed potentially hundreds of thousands of chat sessions not just during their investigation but also during litigation. Google only stopped the practice after the DOJ discovered the policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence#Spoliation
However, in U.S. federal courts, updates to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2015 have resulted in significant decline in spoliation sanctions.
Oof. Five bucks says this change was driven by concerted megacorp lobbying efforts.
Actively destroying evidence should mean automatic inferral of the worst.
Only if you are able to imagine the worst.
Dreadfully true
Until you get arrested for using encryption
Using encryption has essentially nothing in common with deleting records while under investigation.
If they deleted records that's different. What it sounds like is that they just turned off logging when discussing sensitive topics. That isn't a great practice in this case but at the same time that shouldn't automatically make them guilty.
Google was accused of enacting a policy instructing employees to turn chat history off by default when discussing sensitive topics
According to the DOJ, Google destroyed potentially hundreds of thousands of chat sessions not just during their investigation but also during litigation. Google only stopped the practice after the DOJ discovered the policy. DOJ's attorney Kenneth Dintzer told Mehta Friday that 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.
It's perfectly reasonable to see this practice of avoiding the creation of evidence of their wrongdoing as evidence of wrongdoing, which is 100% what it is.
It's not the same as a person using TOR, it's a company hiding evidence.
One day people will read my posts before commenting. I hope…
Pfft. Then you'll be complaining about all the dummies that didn't even understand your progressively more simple prose as you try to explain semi-complex concepts to people with no shared educational background
What post? You just dumped a link on lemmy with a title attached to it.
Not even a small summary or anything, something that I would consider the bare minimum for a post.
There's this neat feature where if you click on the link, you actually get the whole article
True, but what do I need this "post" for then?
It's just kinda irritating to me that I need to open an additional window for something that should've been in the post to begin with.
Title and small summary, that's all I'm asking for here. Give me the bare minimum to decide if opening the whole article is worth it.
Lemmy is a link aggregator. Type those words into your ChatAI and it'll tell you a story.
Well it's great that you have that opinion on lemmy, I prefer something that doesn't look like a bot-post and actually has some content.
welp, better get working on the next big internet thing then
hey, did you know there are other "implementations" - basically skins for lemmy, one of which I seem to recall looking more like what you're asking for. They were sidebarred somewhere, see if you can find those
I’m here to share and discuss.
You have zero understanding about corpoorate governence and record detection laws. You should get educated instead of providing uneducated opinions lol