upvote

points

by amatecha6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby monocularvision5 hours ago|
next
[-]
“Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.”

I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

reply
upvoteby anigbrowl2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No corporate body ever admits wrongdoing and that's part of the problem. Even when a company loses its appeals, it's virtually unheard of for them to apologize, usually you just get a mealy mouthed 'we respect the court's decision although it did not go the way we hoped.' Accordingly, I don't give denials of wrongdoing any weight at all. I don't assume random accusations are true, but even when they are corporations and their officers/spokespersons are incentivized to lie.
reply
upvoteby caminante4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The payout was not pennies and this case had been around since 2019, surviving multiple dismissal attempts.

While not an "admission of wrongdoing," it points to some non-zero merit in the plaintiff's case.

reply
upvoteby stackghost5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

It absolutely is.

If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?

reply
upvoteby gildenFish3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory.

Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.

reply
upvoteby stackghost3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation.

Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?

reply
upvoteby caminante3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios:

(1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict

(2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it

and the parent using either to claim lack of

> some admission of wrongdoing

The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.

reply
upvoteby romanows5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The next sentence under the headline is "Tech company denied illegally recording and circulating private conversations to send phone users targeted ads".
reply
upvoteby caminante5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a worthless indicator of objective innocence.

It's a private, civil case that settled. To not deny wrongdoing (even if guilty) would be insanely rare.

reply
upvoteby romanows4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Obviously. The point is that settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing.
reply
upvoteby caminante4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> settling a lawsuit in this way is also a worthless indicator of wrongdoing

Only if you use a very narrow criteria that a verdict was reached. However, that's impractical as 95% of civil cases resolve without a trial verdict.

Compare this to someone who got the case dismissed 6 years ago and didn't pay out tens of millions of real dollars to settle. It's not a verdict, but it's dishonest to say the plaintiff's case had zero merit of wrongdoing based on the settlement and survival of the plaintiff's case.

reply