[HN Gopher] Google routinely hides emails from litigation by CCi...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google routinely hides emails from litigation by CCing attorneys,
       DOJ alleges
        
       Author : HieronymusBosch
       Score  : 60 points
       Date   : 2022-03-22 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | vmception wrote:
       | > The DOJ also said, "it is well settled that copying an attorney
       | does not confer privilege" on its own.
       | 
       | One of my financial success goals was to have the lawyers that
       | would be able to cite the case law supporting a statement like
       | that.
       | 
       | I have that for some industries (and its a fools errand to have
       | it for all industries all the time), and have learned a lot along
       | the way. Its interesting to see organizations employ the utility
       | of lawyers to this degree.
       | 
       | Aside from having reality shaping counsel, I like that it raises
       | the cost of investigation by orders of magnitude. Makes the
       | government think twice, or thrice, before inconveniencing anyone.
        
         | gonzo41 wrote:
         | Imagine if that publicly traded company was pouring PFAS
         | chemicals into drinking water supplies and using the same
         | tactic. Except the local towns couldn't afford to fight so just
         | had to put up with the externality of cancer in their children.
         | But we're glad their not inconvenienced by an investigation?
        
           | vmception wrote:
           | You can imagine whatever you want.
           | 
           | You chose to imagine an uncollaborative and harmful thing,
           | there are just as many benign things to imagine.
        
             | revolvingocelot wrote:
             | _You_ chose to open a discussion on how great it is to have
             | such sharp lawyers that their very presence discourages
             | government investigation into a corporation 's doings. What
             | sort of doings require such shielding? Collaborative and
             | harmless ones, surely?
             | 
             | I can't imagine many benign things that one would feel the
             | need to cloak behind attorney-client privilege. Maybe a
             | surprise party for a DOJ investigator?
        
               | vmception wrote:
               | We live in different worlds I don't care enough to make
               | examples but I do care enough to notice how routine this
               | can become once you've gone out of the way to lay down
               | the building blocks.
               | 
               | Google and some email clients suggest who to CC nowadays.
               | You dont have to think about it. The counsel is already
               | hired and there. Just CC and who cares what is being
               | discussed. Thats what the article is about.
               | 
               | Think about the difference in power, many people get a
               | lawyer for a reactionary reason. Because the threat and
               | damage already occurred, the utility of a lawyer is
               | extremely limited.
               | 
               | Alternatively when a lawyer is there preemptively, at all
               | times, the threat is simply harder to materialize.
               | 
               | My point is that its much less likely that people were
               | consciously trying to hide something - most of the time -
               | which is my point. Everything can have a semblance of
               | legal advice, putting the onus on the government to parse
               | that first or decide if its even worth parsing that, in
               | comparison to just getting a subpoena rubber stamped and
               | railroading someone into prison. One is more expensive
               | than the other. "Hm we don't know what they did, what
               | legal strategy they employed, and even _if_ we got a
               | subpoena on the little evidence we have, we cant use any
               | of their communications for evidence, attempting parallel
               | construction will leave us caught red handed, and we
               | already know they have the funds to see this through,
               | maybe we should stick with someone that cant afford their
               | base level of rights"
               | 
               | Like a lawyer, it is extremely easy for me to
               | compartmentalize my appreciation of the tools from the
               | theoretical negative consequence you chose to imagine. I
               | chose to imagine all the people that take plea deals from
               | an overzealous government.
        
         | Traster wrote:
         | I don't know why you'd be happy having the investigation cost
         | orders of magnitude more, in a functioning democracy that's
         | just straight up more money on your tax bill. Oh wait...
        
       | greenyoda wrote:
       | Big discussion yesterday:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30760923
        
       | ykevinator2 wrote:
       | I think I'm on googles side on this one. We can change the rule
       | if we don't like it but it's more clever than anything abusive.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-03-22 23:01 UTC)