Yes, Google employees are well aware that they should avoid talking about anything possibly relevant to anti-trust when it’s being recorded, and it’s because it could end up public due to legal...
Yes, Google employees are well aware that they should avoid talking about anything possibly relevant to anti-trust when it’s being recorded, and it’s because it could end up public due to legal discovery. This isn’t new. It’s explained in employee training. It isn’t surprising that there are recordings of people reminding others of this.
While not-new, perhaps this behaviour itself should be counted towards antitrust and should be illegal. And it sounds like at the very least, this systemic, not-new behavior is being used to...
While not-new, perhaps this behaviour itself should be counted towards antitrust and should be illegal.
And it sounds like at the very least, this systemic, not-new behavior is being used to demonstrate "purposefully" destroying evidence. IANAL but there's probably laws that punish, or punish more, if they can demonstrate intent. So, this is good news and I look forward to Google being slapped down especially when they thought they were being "smart" and have been doing so for a while
Technically it’s about not creating evidence rather than destroying it. There is at least one highly regulated industry where apparently all chats are supposed to be recorded. The SEC has fined...
Technically it’s about not creating evidence rather than destroying it.
There is at least one highly regulated industry where apparently all chats are supposed to be recorded. The SEC has fined many large financial firms because traders used an outside chat system. Matt Levine writes about it sometimes.
As far as I know this just isn’t the law for big tech firms, but I suppose it could be changed?
In my view, It is extremely suspicious when a corporation makes it a priority to teach their employees how to avoid evidence of corporate collusion that would be damaging in an antitrust case. It...
In my view, It is extremely suspicious when a corporation makes it a priority to teach their employees how to avoid evidence of corporate collusion that would be damaging in an antitrust case. It suggests that they know that they are breaking the law
It's odd to me that when the law talks to someone, they have the right to remain silent and they are advised to remain silent and let a lawyer speak for them because anything they say can be used...
It's odd to me that when the law talks to someone, they have the right to remain silent and they are advised to remain silent and let a lawyer speak for them because anything they say can be used against them, regardless of the actual intent of what they were saying...but when a company is being investigated, it's considered suspicious to just have employees disable chat history. Like, I get it, and I feel the same way to a degree, but why should they willingly create documents to be used against them in the discovery process when every little offhand remark could come back to bite them, no matter how inconsequential?
When I was there I was in a state of cognitive dissonance between the instruction to not use the word "monopoly" and my own suspicion that the company needed to be broken up. Eventually I realized...
When I was there I was in a state of cognitive dissonance between the instruction to not use the word "monopoly" and my own suspicion that the company needed to be broken up. Eventually I realized that I just can't work in a big company environment. Cognitive dissonance is a way of life there, but I find it to be particularly painful. I try to have all of my actions and beliefs organized such that there is no self-contradiction, even if that causes a great cost to myself. I believe that the world would be a much better place if more people would refuse to betray themselves.
There's the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I heard that in high school and decided to defy that rule, even if that meant sacrifices needed to be made.
The context here is the Microsoft anti-trust case and Google search being used by most people in many countries. It was assumed very early that this would get government attention sooner or later,...
The context here is the Microsoft anti-trust case and Google search being used by most people in many countries. It was assumed very early that this would get government attention sooner or later, regardless of whether Google did anything wrong. Also, in a large company with many young, outspoken employees, often new college grads, it’s assumed that sometimes people will speculate about things they know little about, unless they get training not to do that.
You’ve seen what people say on the Internet, right? We speculate wildly and use hyperbolic language.
So we were given training to be careful not to casually use aggressive language like “killing the competition” or to talk about “dominance” and “market share,” etc. In a court case, making an argument about what’s the relevant market would be important and that would be up to the lawyers. There are a lot of possible ways to define a market. And why talk about markets and competitors at all when it’s not relevant?
And more generally not to write anything that you wouldn’t want to see in the newspapers.
Or at least, that’s how it was explained to employees, in my vague recollection. It shows that they are aware that they are a target. Giving people a bit of legal training, so they’re not naive about legal risks, isn’t itself a crime.
But it’s also true that if they didn’t have billions of users then that training wouldn’t be necessary.
There might or might not be actual attempt to evade getting caught breaking the law with these policies. I'm looking forward to seeing what the judges think.
There might or might not be actual attempt to evade getting caught breaking the law with these policies. I'm looking forward to seeing what the judges think.
Yeah, it’s a big company and I can’t claim to know everything that went on. I’m just explaining what the “party line” was at the time. Organizations don’t usually explain things to their employees...
Yeah, it’s a big company and I can’t claim to know everything that went on. I’m just explaining what the “party line” was at the time. Organizations don’t usually explain things to their employees in a way that makes them the villains.
Didn't a judge end up issuing them an order to collect these communications and then Google chose not to anyway and they got heat for it? My memory is hazy, and search results garbage, It is also...
Didn't a judge end up issuing them an order to collect these communications and then Google chose not to anyway and they got heat for it? My memory is hazy, and search results garbage,
It is also at least more than a little suspicious that a company that bases the majority of its business around tracking and archiving its user's data forever is so utterly careful about not eating their own dogfood.
You've also explained quite well why constant surviellance is a bad thing. However, companies are not people, and if anything, privacy for companies gives them disproportionate power. Google's MO,...
You've also explained quite well why constant surviellance is a bad thing.
However, companies are not people, and if anything, privacy for companies gives them disproportionate power.
Google's MO, best I've gleaned, falls closer to "We'll have a lawyer in every chat so all internal communiction is privileged" loophole exploitation than it is doing due diligence.
My employer has a dedicated legal team, and is highly susceptable to lawsuits. I've never once been told or asked to disable chat history or never archive emails.
The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence—except perhaps if you are instructed to deliberately avoid creating evidence. In that case, there's reason to be skeptical. IANAL...
The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence—except perhaps if you are instructed to deliberately avoid creating evidence. In that case, there's reason to be skeptical. IANAL yet seems grounds to dig a whole lot deeper legally.
First off: I think Google and other tech giants are too big and should be broken up, and that we should have stronger market regulation. Nevertheless, the fact that people are sensitive to the...
First off: I think Google and other tech giants are too big and should be broken up, and that we should have stronger market regulation.
Nevertheless, the fact that people are sensitive to the kinds of records they are creating is pretty common any time you're dealing with (or expecting to deal with) a legal process.
This is true even if you're the "good guy" because law is an adversarial process. It's not about what is true, but about what you can convince a jury is true.
You know a lawyer from the other side is going to dig through everything you ever wrote or said with a fine tooth comb and try to find things that paint you in a bad light, even if that means taking things out of context. Your lawyers can try to provide that context, but juries don't always respond well to nuance.
My experience is that the legal side is so much more about these "gotcha" statements that the actual substance of things matters very little. It's very difficult to police your writing for these negative sound bites in real time, so its common to create a process that produces documentation you are sure reflects your actual position on a topic.
Yes, Google employees are well aware that they should avoid talking about anything possibly relevant to anti-trust when it’s being recorded, and it’s because it could end up public due to legal discovery. This isn’t new. It’s explained in employee training. It isn’t surprising that there are recordings of people reminding others of this.
While not-new, perhaps this behaviour itself should be counted towards antitrust and should be illegal.
And it sounds like at the very least, this systemic, not-new behavior is being used to demonstrate "purposefully" destroying evidence. IANAL but there's probably laws that punish, or punish more, if they can demonstrate intent. So, this is good news and I look forward to Google being slapped down especially when they thought they were being "smart" and have been doing so for a while
Technically it’s about not creating evidence rather than destroying it.
There is at least one highly regulated industry where apparently all chats are supposed to be recorded. The SEC has fined many large financial firms because traders used an outside chat system. Matt Levine writes about it sometimes.
As far as I know this just isn’t the law for big tech firms, but I suppose it could be changed?
In my view, It is extremely suspicious when a corporation makes it a priority to teach their employees how to avoid evidence of corporate collusion that would be damaging in an antitrust case. It suggests that they know that they are breaking the law
It's odd to me that when the law talks to someone, they have the right to remain silent and they are advised to remain silent and let a lawyer speak for them because anything they say can be used against them, regardless of the actual intent of what they were saying...but when a company is being investigated, it's considered suspicious to just have employees disable chat history. Like, I get it, and I feel the same way to a degree, but why should they willingly create documents to be used against them in the discovery process when every little offhand remark could come back to bite them, no matter how inconsequential?
When I was there I was in a state of cognitive dissonance between the instruction to not use the word "monopoly" and my own suspicion that the company needed to be broken up. Eventually I realized that I just can't work in a big company environment. Cognitive dissonance is a way of life there, but I find it to be particularly painful. I try to have all of my actions and beliefs organized such that there is no self-contradiction, even if that causes a great cost to myself. I believe that the world would be a much better place if more people would refuse to betray themselves.
There's the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I heard that in high school and decided to defy that rule, even if that meant sacrifices needed to be made.
The context here is the Microsoft anti-trust case and Google search being used by most people in many countries. It was assumed very early that this would get government attention sooner or later, regardless of whether Google did anything wrong. Also, in a large company with many young, outspoken employees, often new college grads, it’s assumed that sometimes people will speculate about things they know little about, unless they get training not to do that.
You’ve seen what people say on the Internet, right? We speculate wildly and use hyperbolic language.
So we were given training to be careful not to casually use aggressive language like “killing the competition” or to talk about “dominance” and “market share,” etc. In a court case, making an argument about what’s the relevant market would be important and that would be up to the lawyers. There are a lot of possible ways to define a market. And why talk about markets and competitors at all when it’s not relevant?
And more generally not to write anything that you wouldn’t want to see in the newspapers.
Or at least, that’s how it was explained to employees, in my vague recollection. It shows that they are aware that they are a target. Giving people a bit of legal training, so they’re not naive about legal risks, isn’t itself a crime.
But it’s also true that if they didn’t have billions of users then that training wouldn’t be necessary.
There might or might not be actual attempt to evade getting caught breaking the law with these policies. I'm looking forward to seeing what the judges think.
Yeah, it’s a big company and I can’t claim to know everything that went on. I’m just explaining what the “party line” was at the time. Organizations don’t usually explain things to their employees in a way that makes them the villains.
Didn't a judge end up issuing them an order to collect these communications and then Google chose not to anyway and they got heat for it? My memory is hazy, and search results garbage,
It is also at least more than a little suspicious that a company that bases the majority of its business around tracking and archiving its user's data forever is so utterly careful about not eating their own dogfood.
Your tone makes it sound like this isn't worth talking about.
Is it? Everyone in the world wants to avoid creating evidence that they're committing crimes.
The easiest way to do that is not to commit crimes. Maybe Google should look into that.
You don't have to commit crimes to create evidence you committed crimes.
You've also explained quite well why constant surviellance is a bad thing.
However, companies are not people, and if anything, privacy for companies gives them disproportionate power.
Google's MO, best I've gleaned, falls closer to "We'll have a lawyer in every chat so all internal communiction is privileged" loophole exploitation than it is doing due diligence.
My employer has a dedicated legal team, and is highly susceptable to lawsuits. I've never once been told or asked to disable chat history or never archive emails.
Well, largely yes, but go ahead if you think there’s more to it. Maybe I missed something?
I think if nothing else it's s morally deplorable. It's fucked that we've been conditioned to think that as business as usual.
The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence—except perhaps if you are instructed to deliberately avoid creating evidence. In that case, there's reason to be skeptical. IANAL yet seems grounds to dig a whole lot deeper legally.
First off: I think Google and other tech giants are too big and should be broken up, and that we should have stronger market regulation.
Nevertheless, the fact that people are sensitive to the kinds of records they are creating is pretty common any time you're dealing with (or expecting to deal with) a legal process.
This is true even if you're the "good guy" because law is an adversarial process. It's not about what is true, but about what you can convince a jury is true.
You know a lawyer from the other side is going to dig through everything you ever wrote or said with a fine tooth comb and try to find things that paint you in a bad light, even if that means taking things out of context. Your lawyers can try to provide that context, but juries don't always respond well to nuance.
My experience is that the legal side is so much more about these "gotcha" statements that the actual substance of things matters very little. It's very difficult to police your writing for these negative sound bites in real time, so its common to create a process that produces documentation you are sure reflects your actual position on a topic.