Technology

59963 readers

3505 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

359

Judge mulls sanctions over Google’s “shocking” destruction of internal chats (arstechnica.com)

submitted 7 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -82 points 7 months ago (19 children)

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.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.

load more comments (18 replies)