So who wins exactly if this precedent is set and companies all move back to less efficient but "safer" channels of communication? That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society.
Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Or is the government going to enforce mandatory private monitoring?
Someone in this thread mentioned that the financial sector records all history for anything work related. What's wrong with that?
> That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society.
Are you arguing that corporations need to violate laws in order to be productive and efficient?
> Because there will always be such channels used in private business.
Yes. But look at how much leaked out in Google's case.
What do you think would happen if Google's policy was to only use personal means of communication? (IE, personal cell #, personal email, text messages instead of chat...) What do you think would be happening now?
I think you're confusing personal liberties and the right to privacy with the delicate balance of corporate regulation.
> If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen.
There's a very clear difference between our right to privacy as individuals, and how we communicate in our jobs as employees or contractors of a corporation.
The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" statement is a fallacy when it comes to an individuals right to privacy. In contract, because corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as people, thus "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies to corporate email, chat, ect.
Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Or is the government going to enforce mandatory private monitoring?