zlacker

If that training involves destroying evidence or withholding evidence from the prosecution, you are going to jail if you follow it.

>>nieman+(OP)
What a strange assumption. The training is "summon the lawyers immediately", "ensure they're accompanied at all times while on company premises", etc.

>>nieman+(OP)
The training is very much the opposite.

mine had a scene where some bro tried to organise the resistance. A voice over told us that he was arrested for blocking a legal investigation and was liable for being fired due to reputational damage.

X's training might be like you described, but everywhere else that is vaguely beholden to law and order would be opposite.

>>hn_go_+J
That can start with self deleting messages if you are under court order, and has happens before:

“Google intended to subvert the discovery process, and that Chat evidence was ‘lost with the intent to prevent its use in litigation’ and ‘with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.’”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.37...

VW is another case where similar things happens:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/vw-offici...

The thing is: Companies don’t got to jail, employees do.

>>nieman+(OP)
>withholding evidence from the prosecution, you are going to jail if you follow.

Prosecution must present a valid search warrant for *specific* information. They don't get a carte blanche, so uber way is correct. lock computers and lets the courts to decide.

>>nieman+D6
Right, but you are confusing a _conspiracy_ with staff training.

I didn't work anywhere near the level, or anything thats dicey where I needed to have a "oh shit delete everything the Feds are here" plan. Which is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (I'm not sure what the common law/legal code name for that is)

The stuff I worked on was legal and in the spirit of the law, along with a paper trail (that I also still have) proving that.

>>free65+Pa
In common law/4th amendment, kinda. Once you have a warrant, then the word reasonable comes into play. Its reasonable to assume that the data you want is on the devices of certain people. if incidental data/evidence is also procured that was reasonably likely to contain said data, then its fair game

In the civil code, its quite possibly different. The french have had ~ 3 constitutions in the last 80 years. The also dont have the concept of case history. who knows what the law actually is.

>>hn_go_+J
A raid with a warrant skips all that.

>>direwo+uX1
Not really? If the people want to get through the locked doors throughout the office, they'll need someone to let them through the doors. At least where I work, the receptionists don't have that access. They need to call people who do have universal door access to let them in. Unless the cops just want to battering-ram their way through all the doors for the fun of it...

Also, a raid without a warrant is not a raid. It's a friendly visit to someone's office.

>>hn_go_+IP4
Nope. With a warrant you break down the door if they don't cooperate. They do find it fun. They won't accept your stalling tactics.

>>direwo+tu5
"don't cooperate"? "Yes sir, let me call the people downstairs who can help you." is not stalling.

If they're so impatient, are they going to somehow hack the badge-controlled elevators to make them go where they want?