That's interesting, but how is that any different at all from discussing a topic in person in which it is immediately discarded so long as it is not recorded? Seems identical and it should not be considered concealment in any way, even if it's for "sensitive" meetings, as they could have just as easily been done in person verbally with no recordings. This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended.
> This really feels like authorities overstepping because they want to know things they weren't meant to know and are just personally offended.
This is a well established part of legal practices government or otherwise. If you sue someone or something civility you are entitled to read all documents they have on the matter in discovery.
This isn't the government being nosey, it's part of law to ensure justice is done. If you claim "we aren't doing x" your position is strengthened if all you docs say "we don't do X" it is only weakened if you docs say "we are definitely doing x".
It also cuts both ways. You get to get the documents from the litigant related to the topic at hand. If that have docs that say "we are only suing to shut them up" that can look really bad at trial.
Discovery is there so there isn't surprises at trial. Everyone gets to know what everyone has do they can plan out the best legal theories for themselves. It would actually be unfair otherwise.
Consider, for example, if the government sued Google for X, but they had documents in their possession that said "Google did not do X". That unfairly puts Google at a disadvantage and calls into question why the prosecution happened in the first place.
Like I get that you are echoing the (good) advice to never talk to police, but contemporaneous notes can save your bacon if you are acting in good faith. There's a reason former lawyers tend to meticulously note take at meetings.
Particularly if you aren't in a decision making position, taking notes is a CYA move, especially if you think the company is doing something potentially shady.
Why do you think every business issues receipts and invoices? It's not a tax thing, it's a legal thing. These little pieces of paper can cover the business's ass if you later claim they overcharged for a service not performed or good not delivered.
> after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or
It's different because the law covers recorded information, and the law cares about provable intent.
Worth pointing out that this law is old with a lot of modern intepretations be wary of treating this literal text as the only substance of it
So basically all phone calls and video calls. They are recorded, then transmitted digitally, then played back. The fact that they don't get saved is a tiny technicality
Well you should ask a lawyer to explain to you the concept of a "document retention policy" long before you do anything that could possibly get you involved in litigation or an investigation.
My point, which everyone seems to be missing, is, if a judged said "You must record all your conversations" I feel like most people on this board would say the judge crossed a line. That being required to record all your conversations, as in carry around a recording device and make sure every conversation you have is recorded, conversation in hallways, conversations in the bathroom, conversations at the gym, conversations at lunch, dinner, in bed (maybe you're dating a co-worker), conversations in meetings. I feel strongly people would object that's not ok, not constitutional, 1984ish, etc...
I get that I should talk to a lawyer. That's not the point. The point is, IMO, recording chat is over the line. email yes, documents yes, chat and video conferencing no. People would find a judge ordering all employees direct face to face conversations being recorded to be unacceptable. To me chat = slightly facilitated face to face conversions. To me it's a slippery slope. If chat is ok today, video conferencing tomorrow, then demand total surveillance next because it will be technically possible (already is). That fact that it's trivial to record chat ignores that it shouldn't be required to be recorded in the first place.
People here are okay with because is popular to hate on Google. You're next.
It is totally common in business for certain broad topics of conversation to need to be retained for legal purposes, especially written communications.
What makes you think "chat" is any different than email?
My (IANAL) understanding is that even if a Judge didn't order it explicitly, writing something like "let's not discuss this in email, meet me in the hallway" can look very bad in retrospect. Similarly, explicitly turning off chat transcripts (or failing to turn them on) when required may not be a good strategy, as this article shows.
From the article:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
"If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court [...] (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment."
Doing potentially illegal business verbally with no written trail is a well-known strategy. It is still concealment if those participating do not tell when interrogated.
Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.
>Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information.
No. When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, which is more than just knowing litigation is possible, that's when they need to avoid destroying information relating to the litigation.
Examples of situations that fit are:
1. when they know a suit has been filed
2. when the company is contemplating litigation - i.e. when they have asked for a legal opinion, started doing some groundwork, looked into feasibility of suit etc.
