[lynndotpy]

I think "CYA" is maybe a misleading or overflowery term.

In the idealized world, the legal system is meant to provide an accessible alternative to violence for reconciling disputes, but it's increasingly wielded as an impossibly kafkaesque system meant to maintain corporate power over individuals.

I think "CYA" is an overly-flowery term for the reality that they're blocking every avenue for legal recourse, while a variety of other avenues still exist for which adding friction requires the maintenance of expensive and ongoing costs (owning multiple residences, hiring security, etc.)

(To be clear, I am advocating for a more accessible and level legal system, not for UHC-style violence.)

[cholmdomsky]

I'm taking some college courses, and one of them explicitly suggests to keep maybe-not-okay communications off of email so that "you don't expose your company to risks of litigation."

Ah, I see. So, when discussing ways to ensure cuatomers cannot utilize our warranty process, I'll make sure to do so in ways that are not traceable and won't show up in discovery.

[toss1]

The general rule for email, text, and all other communications I've heard is: "Don't write anything that you wouldn't be comfortable seeing on the front page of the New York times."

Heard that first from a US mil commander who once ran for a minor political office like state rep.

[throwaway173738]

I’ve also been told to preface all of my written communications with “dear lawyers and the FDA” at a job. Not that we did anything illegal, but sometimes you catch yourself writing statements that would be really easy to misconstrue.

[skybrian]

The underlying reason is that employees don't always know what they're talking about, but their nonsense could be useful to the other side in a court case.

The bigger the company, the more speculation there is about stuff people don't actually understand.

[miki123211]

This is just companies fighting back against the ever-expanding powers of state surveillance.

Back when the relevant laws were written, most communications was oral and in-person, writing was reserved for the "important stuff". We now apply the laws that were designed for memos to messages on Slack, which are a lot like conversations than permanent documents.

[lovich]

The underlying reason is to break the law and not get caught. Let’s be real here.

[shermantanktop]

Did you go to high school? A sister of a friend of a friend says blah blah blah and everybody knows that yadda yadda. Same thing happens in big companies, especially among people who are out of the loop but wish they knew all the inside details. I see this all the time and sometimes it sounds like something that would be pretty damaging in a court case.

In other cases I have heard people who ought to know better speculating about “what if” they didn’t have to follow the letter of some corporate policy that was rooted in risk avoidance. Again, it looks bad but it doesn’t mean anything concrete (except that the person might have iffy judgment).

[lovich]

> Did you go to high school?

Hey, fuck you too buddy.

I said this based on my years of working at companies on projects specifically to do things like delete all data as soon as it was legally permissible so it could never come up in court again.

And most of my “let’s take this offline” chats have led to discussions around doing illegal shit.

Hell, I had one manager give me handwritten code on paper and instructions to commit it under my name. The code in question would cause sales to go through without the discounts presented to customers because the discount service was buggy and his metrics were based on successfully completed sales. Even threatened to fire me when I said no, and only backed down when I put the paper in my pocket and asked if he would like for anyone else outside the room to see it or if he would not use me as a fall guy.

If your employees “don’t know what they’re talking about” then either they are not representative of the companies views and have no power to enact illegal policies for the company, or they do and you don’t have controls. Trying to hide that shit by default means you don’t get the benefit of the doubt, like you are giving them.

[shermantanktop]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said it that way. What I meant was "remember high school?" Reading back i think it could look like "are you someone who didn't go to high school, because you sound uneducated?" Not my intent, and not something i would say.

The situations you describe are not what I have experienced, which I guess makes me lucky.

My point was that in discovery, the idle chatter of know-nothings looks bad. But if there are companies that really have something to hide, well I guess that's what discovery is for. And as for your manager pal, if someone did that I'd be looking for work that very afternoon.

[CPLX]

That’s not the underlying reason.

[cholmdomsky]

That makes a lot of sense to me, thank you. I was probably projecting a lot of my own fears and feelings into the interpretation of a lot of what some of my courses are trying to teach me.

[sophacles]

> In the idealized world, the legal system is meant to provide an accessible alternative to violence for reconciling disputes, but it's increasingly wielded as an impossibly kafkaesque system meant to maintain corporate power over individuals.

This is an overly flowery way of saying: violence.

The worst of the consequences are the same. People end up dead, destitute, and/or with long-term health consequences and are unable to enjoy the fruits labor in the worst cases. In the milder cases i think i'd prefer a bruise for a week to a huge financial loss.

[traverseda]

There are plenty of nonviolent extralegal options. Ranging fron sit-ins and protests, to destruction of property, to many examples in the CIA's subtle sabotage field guide like running meetings poorly.

[sli]

They're saying due to the real world effects, the current system isn't meaningfully different from violence. They aren't advocating for violence in turn.