• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    7 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
        13
        ·
        7 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
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

      • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        What post? You just dumped a link on lemmy with a title attached to it.

        Not even a small summary or anything, something that I would consider the bare minimum for a post.

          • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            True, but what do I need this “post” for then?

            It’s just kinda irritating to me that I need to open an additional window for something that should’ve been in the post to begin with.

            Title and small summary, that’s all I’m asking for here. Give me the bare minimum to decide if opening the whole article is worth it.

              • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Well it’s great that you have that opinion on lemmy, I prefer something that doesn’t look like a bot-post and actually has some content.

            • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              welp, better get working on the next big internet thing then

              hey, did you know there are other “implementations” - basically skins for lemmy, one of which I seem to recall looking more like what you’re asking for. They were sidebarred somewhere, see if you can find those

    • applepie@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

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