Comment on Judge mulls sanctions over Google’s “shocking” destruction of internal chats

possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• subignition@fedia.io ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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

  source

  • Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• Badeendje@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Actively destroying evidence should mean automatic ondertal of the worst.

  source

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Only if you are able to.imagine the worst.

    source

    • Badeendje@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Dreadfully true

      source
  • possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Until you get arrested for using encryption

    source

    • Womble@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Using encryption has essentially nothing in common with deleting records while under investigation.

      source

      • possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        source
• Hegar@kbin.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• applepie@kbin.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You have zero understanding about corpoorate governence and record detection laws. You should get educated before providing uneducated opinions lol

  source
• jeffw@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  One day people will read my posts before commenting. I hope…

  source

  • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • june@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There’s this neat feature where if you click on the link, you actually get the whole article

      source

      • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        Tittle 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • jeffw@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m here to share and discuss.

      source
  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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

    source