Hacker News Reader

Comment by rosser | Hacker News Reader

It's not whether the logs exist, but whether the conversation was deliberately had using an ephemeral messaging service, in order to evade statutory data retention obligations.

That's the criminality — the evasion, itself; not which tool was used, but why.

View on HN

People use phones instead of email sometimes for sensitive conversations. Do phones count as ephemeral messaging services? What about voice mail?

Phones have a record of the call having been made, and are subject to wiretapping.

Ephemeral messaging services have neither.

You seem to be fixating over the specifics of individual communication mechanisms, which is not the point.

For instance, will an insistence that execs of Uber only talk in air-gapped soundproof rooms be considered incriminating?

I'm not the one "fixated" on the mechanism of communication. I've consistently talked about the motivation for using a given mechanism, and, when specific mechanisms have been raised, whether those mechanisms satisfy those motivations. I even specifically said, "not which tool was used, but why."

Please don't drag the actual point down into the weeds like that — particularly while accusing me of being the one to do so.

If the conversation is "sensitive" because you are trying to avoid recording evidence of your illegal activity, then yes, it's illegal.

So... if you're doing something illegal, and you know your phone is tapped by the police, it is MANDATORY to use this phone to discuss your illegal activities. Otherwise you'll be prosecuted for it.

I hate how stupid laws can get...

Does that hold if it’s company policy to do all communication over an ephemeral chat system?

I’m struggling to understand this. It seems to suggest a company cannot discuss anything potentially problematic unless there’s a log.

From the article:

>companies have an obligation to preserve records that may be reasonably seen as relevant to litigation or that fall under data retention rules set by industry regulators.

So, is that saying watercooler chat is ok over Snapchat but nothing serious?

Edit: I think this is answered well here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15827511

Which statutory data retention obligations are being talked about with regards to uber? The original commented seems to believe it's obvious.

If they were using an ephemeral messaging app to talk about the theft of trade secrets — a thing that is "black-letter" illegal — then the laws against destroying evidence of criminal behavior might be relevant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com