Hacker News Reader

Comment by tambourine_man | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why large companies use email for such important topics knowing that they can be required by law to disclosure them in the future.

I know that large companies have email retention laws, but why not just keep sensitive topics on Signal or similar?

View on HN

They are definitely doing more of that, but it's not always a get our of jail free card, and may actually put them at legal risk for destroying documents:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antit...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/judge-mulls-sanc...

Not being allowed secrets by law is such a weird concept

It's not weird for a publicly traded company.

I find it weird that these get released as public records, but otherwise, laws against destroying evidence seem fine. And laws requiring disclosure of documents in a court to determine wrongdoing also seem fine. And laws requiring proper record keeping of decision making at large companies also seem fine. Particularly when the burden of record keeping (ensuring emails are not deleted) is not very large.

They write these emails knowing that they'll be public record at some point. The audience is as much internal as it is for the history books. The details get hashed out offline, while the record gets preserved as an email

Why are you so sure of this?

Retention laws are neutral towards technical protocols. They apply to instant messaging and electronic chats just the same.

The contents of these particular emails is actually not very sensitive, and the courts do allow for redactions of more sensitive things (e.g. the actual numbers involved).

Things that should not be discussed in writing happen in person. Meeting rooms, offices, hallways, golf courses.

The emails are written knowing it might be public. And at the C suite, emails are to be very intentional.

becasue it can be interpreted as acting against the company in first place

Reply on news.ycombinator.com