Re:In landmark Google ruling, a warning to companies about p...
by ronsor on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @07:23PM
(#41186544)
> Mehta also criticized the company about its “communicate with care” initiative, which involved Google employees adding lawyers to messages and marking them “attorney/client privileged.”
So Google employees were CC'ing random company lawyers to keep the messages private?
Re:In landmark Google ruling, a warning to companies about p...
by iptq on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @09:04PM
(#41187093)
If companies are already willing to obscure chat logs, what's to say they won't begin manufacturing artificial logs (or editing existing logs) under this kind of pressure?
Re:In landmark Google ruling, a warning to companies about p...
by im3w1l on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @11:35PM
(#41187858)
People are generally more willing to do slightly unethical things over really unethical things.
That's why in this case, I think it's much more likely that they will simply move to discussions to unlogged avenues like phone calls or speaking in person rather than edit logs.
Re:In landmark Google ruling, a warning to companies about p...
by DangitBobby on Thursday August 08, 2024 @12:21AM
(#41188092)
You don't even have to record every in person conversation. Why would you need to keep a permanent record of all chat communication ever? How does the law support that?
So Google employees were CC'ing random company lawyers to keep the messages private?
That's why in this case, I think it's much more likely that they will simply move to discussions to unlogged avenues like phone calls or speaking in person rather than edit logs.
Joe: I never said to do that.
Records are important, not just for the law, but to cover your own ass.