• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Even the judge hates that Google keeps shutting down projects unexpectedly

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      95
      ·
      6 months ago

      It is shocking because they did it after the investigation had started, which is monumentally stupid.

      You can destroy any records you want at any time, unless there’s an investigation underway or you have good reason to believe one will be starting. At that point, you’re destroying evidence.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The crazy part is the implication that the evidence destroyed was probably more damning than having a judge and jury assume anything reasonably suggested to have been implicated by those chats as true.

        • eronth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I wager they’re so used to getting away with shit that destroying evidence probably says less about the crimes committed and more about the piss-poor justice system.

          • enkers@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            *sigh* After reading some of the other comments, I have to agree. I’m not sure whether to be relieved or even more discouraged. It’s a dreadfully boring dystopia.

    • firadin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      No, it’s shocking that the destroyed evidence after being explicitly instructed not to.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Make destroying evidence a worse offense than the crime (or as a de facto admission of guilt) and sanction them accordingly.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    $10 says they’re backed up somewhere.

    A company like Google has redundant backups in their veins.

    Just sayin.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    83
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 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.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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.

      It’s not the same as a person using TOR, it’s a company hiding evidence.

      • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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

    • applepie@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

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