Comments
admiralhipper t1_j9wl8p5 wrote
That fine will hurt.
Someone.
Somewhere.
Eventually.
LikeableCoconut t1_j9x3tu4 wrote
google going bankrupt in 251 years time
Ahh fucking hell, we really could’ve used that 1 million dollars from the auto-delete lawsuit back in ‘023 now.
cawicoaztx t1_j9x5q20 wrote
Google stole memory technology (the 912 patent) from Netlist over 10 years ago to power its search and was found guilty. The damages trial will conclude soon and could cost G billions.
[deleted] t1_j9y5mzh wrote
Quick, take responsibility and lay off more people.
bannacct56 t1_j9yq696 wrote
Also love their new moto " we are definitely going to do evil"
Amazingawesomator t1_j9uz11c wrote
That feel when you read the title and think google is being a bro, but then you read the article and...
> ... to destroy evidence needed in an antitrust lawsuit while falsely telling the government that it suspended its auto-deletion practices.
JMacNCheese91 t1_j9vf1mi wrote
Google would never be a bro dude. They’d dig up your porn from 20 years ago just to make $20.
hocumflute t1_j9w7cv2 wrote
I'm so glad the cut off is 20 years :)
xtrapas t1_j9xg6lp wrote
i wish i could find my old porn :<
Lord_Blizzard t1_j9z5lzn wrote
Shouldn't have destroyed thoses CDs!
xtrapas t1_j9z7yxx wrote
youngling lol
​
i was thinking my old vhs tape.. the one with the thin section. the scene i loved most, so repeated use... poor tape
​
VHS dude, VHS
​
​
cds...pff
SeaPhile206 t1_ja2fxuz wrote
Pfft, wax cylinders man… 🤌🏽
xtrapas t1_ja6waz5 wrote
now now now. thats too far..
also only audio
TheFuzziestDumpling t1_j9vxw6u wrote
What part of that title makes you think they're being a bro?
VelveteenAmbush t1_j9w6cob wrote
He thought they were helping individual criminals get away with their crimes, which is something that a strangely high proportion of Reddit seems to favor.
[deleted] t1_j9yjvg9 wrote
[deleted]
Glittering_Power6257 t1_ja12k6u wrote
I’ll destroy my own evidence, thank you very much…
Not that there will be any, because “Don’t write down your crimes.”
Amazingawesomator t1_j9vz7y3 wrote
They were routinely destroying evidence.
My first thought was that they were destroying stuff the police were asking for while doing investigations.
ms4720 t1_j9w0u5s wrote
They were, when they were getting investigated
atsinged t1_j9wh3cz wrote
>They were routinely destroying evidence.My first thought was that they were destroying stuff the police were asking for while doing investigations.
Investigating people like child predators? CSAM? Online solicitation of a minor cases?
Amazingawesomator t1_j9wmmms wrote
Whoa. Watch out for this guy goin straight for the "helping child predators" approach.
There are plenty of people locked up for extremely minor things in the US (like drug possession, theft, etc) who are only in jail because they are poor.
Snotbob t1_j9xjdq2 wrote
I mean, you went straight for "Google being a bro" and assumed they were actively interfering with police investigations and deleting evidence all just to protect poor criminals, so... you're not really one to judge here.
Like honestly, I'm struggling to wrap my head around how you could 1) be this naive about Google, 2) assume they give a single shit about poor criminals, 3) assume any big tech company, let alone Google, would go out of their way to delete evidence of ongoing investigations for anyone other than themselves, and 4) not automatically assume that the investigations were about Google, the multi billion dollar tech company with a looong history of lawsuits for things just like this.
Google hasn't been a "bro" for nearly 20 years now, and the only thing they care about you is collecting your data and stuffing more and more targeted ads into your life to profit off of you. If they care at all about poor criminals, it's only because they can't collect their data and make ad money off of them when they're locked up.
ninjahackerman t1_j9z0g1l wrote
This is Reddit bro. If you speak out against any corporation or government you will be attacked on all fronts
[deleted] t1_j9vvjcc wrote
[deleted]
ImSuperHelpful t1_j9w0bd6 wrote
Oh no, one of the most powerful, influential, and monopolistic corporations in history acted above the law? I’m shocked I tell you, just shocked.
Be-like-water-2203 t1_j9wjdxp wrote
Don't be evil 🤣
bigleafychode t1_j9xlhh5 wrote
Bender is evil bender?
boli99 t1_j9wga57 wrote
don't be evil
don't get caught.
basil_not_the_plant t1_j9wbn2g wrote
Google's corporate motto: "Do evil"
WhatTheZuck420 t1_ja1fipc wrote
they dropped "o ".
now it's just "Devil"
fastornator t1_j9wd3q0 wrote
I don't get it. Is there some legal requirement that instant messages be retained for some amount of time?
I mean I get it If chat messages that were under discovery got deleted, but I don't think that's the case. It's just that at some point in time new chat conversations were set to be deleted in 24 hours. A new chat conversation can't possibly be relevant to a previous order of discovery.
tricksterloki t1_j9wju5b wrote
Google was notified in 2019 that they were about to be served and to begin preserving documents, including chats created after being notified. Discovery is still ongoing, which is how they found out chats were still being deleted after 24 hrs policy as recently as 2 weeks ago.
fastornator t1_j9x3230 wrote
I don't get it, should video conferences always be recorded and stored? For how long? should all meetings be recorded?
Why is it okay to pop down the hall and talk to your co-worker but you can't ask the same question over chat?
It seems like the government is basically asking Google to record all conversations between employees and keep them indefinitely which is quite a reach.
How about text messages between executives? How long should they be retained? What about when to executives are editing a google doc? Should the whole history of all the edits for every document be retained indefinitely?
tricksterloki t1_j9x5bjb wrote
Some laws define necessary record keeping for certain tasks, such as tax info. If you have been instructed to preserve documents of a given type for a given legal case, you preserve that until after discovery at the very least. You might want to preserve it longer for your own legal purposes in that case. People can also be interviewed or subpoenad. It's not about storing it indefinitely. It's about being legally instructed to store it, saying you are, and then not storing it. Google specifically said it suspended auto-deletion but didn't. Google lying is the important part.
daveime t1_j9xnvaj wrote
> If you have been instructed to preserve documents of a given type for a given legal case
However, in this case the "given type" was "everything". But totally not overreach.
fastornator t1_j9xq1dw wrote
I assume you mean a /s
WhatTheZuck420 t1_ja1f4x8 wrote
>like the government is basically asking Google to record all conversations between employees and keep them indefinitely
they record and store all conversations within mic-shot of my phone
rootbeerdan t1_j9x2ld5 wrote
>Google was notified
Actually, they weren't. The US is saying that Google should have expected it, but they never notified Google until much later.
tricksterloki t1_j9x3yod wrote
Google was notified. Google was told to preserve records and stop auto-deletion. Google said it did. Google kept auto-deletion running during discovery. If you want to play semantics instead of discussing Google's lying and destruction of evidence, then that's up to you.
From the article:
US: Google falsely claimed to suspend auto-deletion But the DOJ says Google repeatedly provided false information to the US about its chat-retention practices:
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 potentiall>y 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.
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.
bony_doughnut t1_ja0hdr6 wrote
So, this might be splitting hairs, but nowhere in that quote does it say that the govt told Google that they had to turn off auto-delete, only that Google should have known (like the other guy said)
rootbeerdan t1_ja0kq39 wrote
>The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required Google to suspend its auto-delete practices in mid-2019, when the company reasonably anticipated this litigation.
This is exactly what I said and disproved what you said.
The US Gov is saying that Google should have expected it, but they never notified Google until much later.
There is no such thing as "reasonably anticipated this litigation" because nobody told them. This entire article is just taking the US gov at 100% fact when Google's side of the story is actually the more reasonable one. Every company on earth has auto deletion policies, although 24 hours is a bit short, it's not intentional destruction of evidence when they were never officially notified.
This is the government trying to shift blame to Google because they didn't want to tell them they were being investigated. This will get thrown out.
400921FB54442D18 t1_j9w6xm9 wrote
And what is "US" planning to do about it that stands any meaningful chance of changing Google's behavior?
admiralhipper t1_j9wkxrk wrote
Welp. Guess we should let them win the Super Bowel now.
Pandamonial t1_j9yu6mm wrote
Ooooh....Do they get to make a Super Bowel Movement with it, or is it just for show?
Homers_Harp t1_ja1r12u wrote
So Google does understand the value of deleting data. Can I expect them to start deleting mine when they say they do? I’m not saying they don’t, but I have my doubts…
xNaquada t1_ja6pasp wrote
If true so what? The US doesn't go after it's tech giants hard enough for it to matter. Even if it's a $10B fine ( which it absolutely will not be) , Google makes more than that per quarter in profit (not revenue, profit!).
The days of any US government holding corporatations to meaningful account has long passed, and every player nationally and internationally knows it.
Last_In t1_j9ws5wn wrote
Nothing of significance will come from their actions
The-Old-Prince t1_j9wtami wrote
The US as in the US Attorney?
snowdn t1_j9wya2b wrote
Reddit combining the updoot and downdoot button into one is a terrible UX experience.
Peligreaux t1_j9x3y9n wrote
What was googles cute little tagline about not being evil?
WhatTheZuck420 t1_ja1fmf4 wrote
Don't be Evil
Then later, like rn, they dropped Don't
Rude-Opinion-3711 t1_j9xj9p5 wrote
Glad I ditched Google, even if I had to go to a different company.
Epsioln_Rho_Rho t1_j9y0qn2 wrote
You can’t ditch them. So many companies and people use them.
jeffyoulose t1_j9vc4da wrote
Pretty sure that chats are auto disappearing in most apps. It's just how modern software works. Thanks to snap and frivolous lawsuits.
Doug7070 t1_j9vwdzc wrote
Sure, and if you believe that data is actually gone I have a bridge to sell you...
jeffyoulose t1_j9vxp7p wrote
Which bridge? The one in Crimea? no thank you! I don't accept damaged bridges.
ms4720 t1_j9w0wgm wrote
One in Brooklyn
jeffyoulose t1_j9w5krq wrote
Are you a time traveler from the 1800s or are you just old? This is a really old metaphor dating back to pre WWI.
ms4720 t1_j9ykjh7 wrote
And still in use
tricksterloki t1_j9wk7gj wrote
Google set the policy on its internal chat system and deliberately chose not to change it after being notified to keep documents and records due to a pending motion in 2019. Google didn't change the setting until this year.
pilzenschwanzmeister t1_j9w4yhn wrote
Protip: no. They're all locked in there.
jeffyoulose t1_j9w6cma wrote
Not really. They are actually deleted. If you mean ip logs. There isn't such a thing. People could have taken screenshots but they didn't.
ronrico1 t1_j9w6dza wrote
Don’t worry - the upcoming 1 million dollar fine on 60 billion in profits will convince them to change their ways and follow the law.