Bloomberg Businessweek (Asia)

Workplace: Your office chats are only funny until somebody gets subpoenaed

-

Whatever you type can and will be used against you

By Rebecca Greenfield

Earlier this month, John Cook, the executive editor of Gawker Media, was forced to live out the personal nightmare of the modern, group-chatting profession­al class. He had to explain in open court why he and his staff had been making penis jokes. “I would characteri­ze it as workplace humor,” he’d said in a deposition taped last year that was played in front of a jury and livestream­ed online.

Terry Gene Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan, is suing Gawker for $100 million over a video the site posted in 2012 featuring the wrestler having sex with the wife of a friend. Included in the evidence are more than 30 pages of Gawker conversati­ons from the work-chat platform Campfire, starting with “we’re about to post the Hulk Hogan sex tape” and devolving into jokes about whether Hogan’s penis was “wearing a little do-rag” and a discussion regarding the color and consistenc­y of Hogan’s “pubes”—and that’s just two pages in.

Since that conversati­on occurred, group chat has only become more prevalent in offices, mostly because it cuts down on e-mail. Campfire now has 100,000 daily active users; Slack has 2 million. (Gawker switched from Campfire to Slack in 2014.) Another service called HipChat says billions of messages have been sent using its service.

Workplace chat i s often called a digital water cooler, because it’s where co-workers have informal conversati­ons at the office—sometimes about work, sometimes not. “Our normal workplace interactio­ns have moved to digital environmen­ts and therefore become permanent in ways that water cooler chat never was,” says Eric Goldman, a professor of technology law at Santa Clara University School of Law.

The very nature of chat—its informalit­y and speed—makes gossiping and joking easy. Slack has features that encourage levity, including a GIF generator and customizab­le emoji. So now is a good time to remind anyone at work: Chat like everyone is watching. “Any electronic records that are relevant to a particular claim are discoverab­le in civil cases,” says Dori Hanswirth, the head of the media litigation practice at Hogan Lovells. “There is no, ‘Well, I was just being funny with my friendly co-workers’ exemption. If it’s out there and gettable, there’s a chance that it will end up in the hands of some legal adversary of your company.”

Multiple lawyers had never heard of Slack, but their advice is plat formagnost­ic: Never write anything—in any format, to anyone—that you wouldn’t want to end up on the front page of the New York Times. “We all say things in the workplace that we don’t want repeated,” Hanswirth says. “But there’s a level of discourse that you may not want to have in writing of any kind.”

Slack lets premium subscriber­s set custom retention periods for chat records so they self-destruct after a certain amount of time. (For nonpaying subscriber­s, the messages stay on Slack’s servers indefinite­ly, although you can manually get rid of them whenever you want.) “This deletion is permanent, and the messages and files are irretrieva­ble,” Slack’s help page warns in bold letters. But that shouldn’t change chatters’ behavior. Lawyers employ an army of people to find informatio­n. Plus, you never know when a suit will be filed; companies have an obligation to halt standard destructio­n policies once a claim is made.

Of course, we all know that we’re not supposed to document dumb, mean, bigoted, or crude ideas. But even in regulated industries such as Wall Street, where digital communicat­ions, including Slack chats, are explicitly saved and monitored, people continue to put the wrong things in writing. In one case, a one-word chat (“awesome!”) effectivel­y revised an existing contract, costing an e-cigarette maker $1.2 million.

In a courtroom setting, chats, however tongue-in-cheek they may be, could color how the jury judges the case. “It’s understand­able that people will use these platforms for casual conversati­on,” Hanswirth says. “But sometimes it’s hard to explain to [a jury] that you really were not being serious.” <BW>

“WE ALL SAY THINGS IN THE WORKPLACE THAT WE DON’T WANT REPEATED”

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia