[ceinewydd]

Do you think that should extend to recording some or all meetings at a company?

A group of executives meets. Should that meeting be recorded, even if it’s not a “hybrid” meeting and entirely happened in person?

A group of engineers meets. How about that one?

This seems like a hard issue. If the court creates a precedent here, I expect any sensitive discussions that might have any sort of future liability will just go back to verbal conversations (if allowed), and then aren’t we back to where we are today, with no record?

[stale2002]

> Do you think that should extend to recording some or all meetings at a company?

That depends. Did the court order that to happen? (Like in this situation!)

If so, then yes, the company should follow the lawful order of the court.

And if such an order is unlawful, then they should appeal it, and do what the appeal court orders them to do.

[bawolff]

There does seem a big difference between requiring things to be recorded and simply requiring that people don't actively take action to prevent recording.

[pjc50]

> A group of executives meets. Should that meeting be recorded, even if it’s not a “hybrid” meeting and entirely happened in person?

If they are discussing matters related to the company, then it should at least be minuted.

The counterpart to "don't take notes on a criminal conspiracy" is "why, if you're not involved in a criminal conspiracy, are you not taking notes?"

(This has become absolutely endemic in UK government where all kinds of things happen in encrypted whatsapp groups .. which are then selectively leaked by one of the attendees.)

[bdd8f1df777b]

If that becomes true, both remote work AND offshoring may soon be increasingly rare at Google.

[joojgojegaw]

actively taking steps to destroy data is very different from simply not creating the data in the first place.

I get that you're eager to create a slippery slope, but you're just showing your ass.