It doesn't, it favors longstanding caselaw and laws already on the books.
There is a longstanding precedent with regards to business document retention, and chat logs have been part of that for years if not decades. The article tries to make this sound like this is something new, but if you look at the e-retention guidelines in various cases over the years this is all pretty standard.
For a business to continue operating, they must preserve business documents and related ESI upon an appropriate legal hold to avoid spoliation. They likely weren't doing this claiming the data was deleted, which is why the judge ruled in favor against OAI.
This isn't uncommon knowledge either, its required. E-discovery and Information Governance are things any business must meet in this area; and those documents are subject to discovery in certain cases, where OAI likely thought they could avoid it maliciously.
The matter here is OAI and its influence rabble are churning this trying to do a runaround on longstanding requirements that any IT professional in the US would have reiterated from their legal department/Information Governance policies.
There's nothing to see here, there's no real story. They were supposed to be doing this and didn't, were caught, and the order just forces them to do what any other business is required to do.
I remember an executive years ago (decades really), asking about document retention, ESI, and e-discovery and how they could do something (which runs along similar lines to what OAI tried as a runaround). I remember the lawyer at the time saying, "You've gotta do this or when it goes to court you will have an indefensible position as a result of spoliation...".
You are mistaken, and appear to be trying to frame this improperly towards a point of no accountability.
I suggest you review the longstanding e-discovery retention requirements that courts require of businesses to operate.
This is not new material, nor any different from what's been required for a long time now. All your hyperbole about privacy is without real basis, they are a company; they must comply with law, and it certainly is not outrageous to hold people who break the law to account, and this can only occur when regulatory requirements are actually fulfilled.
There is no argument here.
References:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1, 4, 16, 26, 34, 37
There are many law firms who have written extensively on this and related subjects. I encourage you to look at those too.
(IANAL) Disclosure:
Don't take this as legal advice. I've had the opportunity to work with quite a few competent ones, but I don't interpret the law; only they can. If you need someone to provide legal advice seek out competent qualified counsel.
There is a longstanding precedent with regards to business document retention, and chat logs have been part of that for years if not decades. The article tries to make this sound like this is something new, but if you look at the e-retention guidelines in various cases over the years this is all pretty standard.
For a business to continue operating, they must preserve business documents and related ESI upon an appropriate legal hold to avoid spoliation. They likely weren't doing this claiming the data was deleted, which is why the judge ruled in favor against OAI.
This isn't uncommon knowledge either, its required. E-discovery and Information Governance are things any business must meet in this area; and those documents are subject to discovery in certain cases, where OAI likely thought they could avoid it maliciously.
The matter here is OAI and its influence rabble are churning this trying to do a runaround on longstanding requirements that any IT professional in the US would have reiterated from their legal department/Information Governance policies.
There's nothing to see here, there's no real story. They were supposed to be doing this and didn't, were caught, and the order just forces them to do what any other business is required to do.
I remember an executive years ago (decades really), asking about document retention, ESI, and e-discovery and how they could do something (which runs along similar lines to what OAI tried as a runaround). I remember the lawyer at the time saying, "You've gotta do this or when it goes to court you will have an indefensible position as a result of spoliation...".
You are mistaken, and appear to be trying to frame this improperly towards a point of no accountability.
I suggest you review the longstanding e-discovery retention requirements that courts require of businesses to operate.
This is not new material, nor any different from what's been required for a long time now. All your hyperbole about privacy is without real basis, they are a company; they must comply with law, and it certainly is not outrageous to hold people who break the law to account, and this can only occur when regulatory requirements are actually fulfilled.
There is no argument here.
References: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1, 4, 16, 26, 34, 37
There are many law firms who have written extensively on this and related subjects. I encourage you to look at those too.
(IANAL) Disclosure: Don't take this as legal advice. I've had the opportunity to work with quite a few competent ones, but I don't interpret the law; only they can. If you need someone to provide legal advice seek out competent qualified counsel.