Hacker News Reader

The reason they don’t want employees to use these words (and why they go OTR occasionally) is, at least as alleged by the government, to make discovery more difficult/impossible and also to hide/destroy evidence of their activity. It’s not about being word police, it’s about the reason why they’re policing language.

View on HN

If you observe an action that's wrong, you can work backwards from there to discover what you need.

If you have to use dragnet searches, that means you don't have any clear bad action to work from, and you're trying to construct it from statements.

Do you not understand the basic principle of law that intention actually does matter? Or do you not understand that it may be difficult to prove that there was intention to commit a bad act even if it is trivial to establish that the bad act was made?

That's not a joke or something to take for granted. A lot of people in tech want law to be like a formal mathematics, and sort of pretend that's how it works, rather than acknowledge that fuzzy human things like "intention" are valid factors in legal matters.

Yeah but this is reasonable with or without antitrust violations. Its the same principle as the 5th amendment and not incriminating yourself.

They aren’t being charged with policing the language used by their employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com