7 ms·

> So they lied in the first response (all data is wiped and unrecoverable) Not defending Mailchimp, but keep in mind the perspective and context. To a customer

• tjoff 8y ago
  It is still a lie. Also keep in mind the perspective and context that the end user has no way of knowing. And even if the data can be recovered in an unofficial manner whether they will actually bother is highly unlikely if they care as little as they most obviously do. So, as a user it is a pretty safe bet to just assume it is gone (but do keep poking).
  • Spivak 8y ago
    It's a lie that organizations have backups? "Your data has been deleted" pretty much has always meant that it was deleted from the live servers and that the deletion will propagate through backups depending on the orgs retention policy/requirements.
    • detaro 8y ago
      We don't know the exact messages. If the poster asked for a copy of his data and was told it was deleted, then yes, that was a lie (although possibly the person sending the message genuinely might not have known better, which puts the fault more nebulously at "the company"). If they asked why their account was gone and the response said "all data has been deleted" without offering a copy of it, it's just bad service. (Although given privacy regulations, it's a bad sign if a support agent can't give a precise answer about data stored or at least know not to make unchecked claims about it)
    • dhimes 8y ago
      "Your data has been deleted" pretty much has always meant To whom? My mother? Nope- she thinks it's gone. So yeah- it's a lie, and you only catch it if you know better. "Yes Dad I did my homework" has pretty much always meant that he hasn't started it yet. No, it's a lie and the organization knows it. They are responsible for training their CS folks.
      • Spivak 8y ago
        If I turn on Windows Backup on my Mom's laptop and she right clicks a file and selects "Delete" is the expected behavior that it be deleted in every backup as well?
        • AsyncAwait 8y ago
          If she doesn't know the backup's been set up, in her mind, yes.
          • dkonofalski 8y ago
            Are you suggesting that the delete command shouldn't be trusted because there might be a backup of the file somewhere? You people are throwing around the word "lie" very loosely here...
            • AsyncAwait 8y ago
              > Are you suggesting that the delete command shouldn't be trusted because there might be a backup of the file somewhere? No, the exact opposite in fact. Am saying that if you weren't told there's a backup, you'll not think there's one and treat the data as completely deleted, even if they really aren't.
        • icebraining 8y ago
          Windows doesn't tell your Mom that her data has been wiped, just that a particular file has been deleted.
    • amingilani 8y ago
      MailChimp, the organization, first stated that all data was completely wiped, and when threatened, promptly produced the previously wiped data. MailChimp, as an organization, lied. It doesn't matter if the support agent didn't have the capabilities or not, that's an internal thing. The organization knows that they have the data, but they trained their staff to reply that it was destroyed. That's a lie. Not an untrue statement, but a deliberate lie.
    • kemiller2002 8y ago
      >>"Your data has been deleted" pretty much has always meant that it was deleted from the live servers and that the deletion will propagate through backups depending on the orgs retention policy/requirements. No it doesn't. Deleted most places means deleted and gone forever. There are a number of legal requirements (in the U.S.) at least when dealing with certain government organizations, and many non ones as well surrounding this. Think of it this way, a customer comes and says, there is sensitive information on your server, and since we no longer want to do business with you, you are now required to delete it. Normally there is an end date to allow the backups to be purged through propagation etc., but at the end, when they say it's deleted, it means deleted from everywhere. Sometimes this also means completely wiping drives so there is absolutely no trace of it left.
    • stefan_ 8y ago
      Either the data is deleted or it's not. If I send you a GDPR request, you reply "it's all deleted" then at a later date, data magically appears, that's an obvious per se violation.
  • cmiller1 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie "A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception" I don't think you can prove it was a lie.
    • vkou 8y ago
      Since we don't have a mind-reading machine, by that logic, we can conclude that no statement can be proven to be a lie. After all, how can we know what an alleged liar is really thinking?
      • skybrian 8y ago
        You exaggerate, but actually, this is a good reason to avoid accusing people of lying unless you understand the situation pretty well. Honest mistakes do happen a lot.
        • vkou 8y ago
          It doesn't matter if the individual people at MailChimp were liars. What matters is that the institution as a whole - the way their policies and procedures come together - lied. The institution certainly knows of it's capabilities. It deliberately chose to not tell that to it's CS reps, because of a multitude of reasons, that come down to 'It makes our/their jobs easier.' My ISP, for example, lies to me every time I make a call to customer service. Is the front-line CS rep lying to me? No. But his employer is, by making him tell me a pile of bullshit about why my Internet is busted - again.
          • diminoten 8y ago
            "The word lie has lost all meaning" "It doesn't matter if they're liars" C'mon, man.
          • skybrian 8y ago
            Well, but that's anthropomorphizing. Institutions don't really know things, people do. Getting stuff out of one person's head to all the people that could use it actually takes a lot of effort. (Look at how terrible medical record systems are.)
• mojowo11 8y ago
  As a manager of a customer service team, everyone on my team knows exactly whether something has been "totally wiped" or not, regardless of whether it's something that would require developer intervention to recover. To have your reps not understand this and ultimately mislead the customer (or, in this case, I suppose former customer would be more accurate) is a management/training problem, and what the rep ultimately said on behalf of the company was a lie as a result.
  • drwl 8y ago
    It's possible that tools used by Care/Support don't have everything implemented
    • detaro 8y ago
      to quote your parent: > regardless of whether it's something that would require developer intervention to recover.
  • UseStrict 8y ago
    Agreed, regardless of whether the rep can see it or not, they should be trained properly and reply that they no longer have access to the data, and that access would require an escalation of some sort. To simply say the data is gone is a straight up lie.
    • dkonofalski 8y ago
      A lie is a falsehood that's meant to deceive someone. A rep saying the data is gone because, functionally, it is is not a lie. If the intent is to set proper expectations with a customer then I think telling them it's gone and potentially being able to say "actually, we were able to recover it by escalating it" is better than "we may be able to recover it by escalating the issue" because you're underpromising and overdelivering. The opposite just sets you and the customer for failure.
  • dkonofalski 8y ago
    I have to disagree with this wholeheartedly because sometimes you don't want to set the expectation with a front-line representative that the data is recoverable. In many cases, you don't want reps promising to recover data that's potentially unrecoverable. It's one thing to recover data in the event of a mistake on behalf of the company but that should require a conversation with someone outside of front-line customer service. I've been in situations too many times where our front-line team knew when something had not been "totally wiped" and they turned out to be "totally wrong" because they were aware that we kept backups but not aware that we had a strict retention policy outside of a specific timeframe or, in other cases, where a hardware failure caused a loss of a specific set of data because it was marked for deletion and wasn't scheduled to have a backup anyways. The customer had cancelled their account and agreed to losing their data but didn't actually read the terms of the cancellation they agreed to and then returned over a month later asking for their data and a rep told them that it's not really lost because we keep backups every 30, 60, and 90 days. That part was true for live accounts but not for deleted accounts. In other words, data recovery that can't be handled by the customer service reps and that requires developer intervention should be a "surprise and delight" sort of situation and not a "customer should expect this" type of situation.
• patrickg_zill 8y ago
  If management sets up a system which intentionally results in untruths being told to customers ...?
  • SkyPuncher 8y ago
    There's nothing nefarious about customer service not having access to every single possible data record on a customer. In fact, I'd be concerned if customer services had access to archived backups or raw server logs. For most intents and purposes, data existing only on archived backups or raw server logs is "completely wiped".
    • icebraining 8y ago
      There's nothing nefarious about customer service not having access to every single possible data record on a customer. In fact, I'd be concerned if customer services had access to archived backups or raw server logs. Irrelevant, customer service can know if the data record exists without having access to it. For most intents and purposes, data existing only on archived backups or raw server logs is "completely wiped". My intent and purpose in asking the question may not be part of "most", yet it's still valid.
• briandear 8y ago
  But it isn’t completely wiped. That is completely inaccurate.
• rkeene2 8y ago
  The antecedent of "they" in the previous sentence is the company, not an individual. The individual creating the email, as a person, probably was not lying BUT since they were acting as an agent of the company, in an official capacity all of their actions were that of the company as a whole. This shields them from individual liability as well as makes the company liable for their actions (as long as they are acting as agents of the company in an official capacity). The customer has no business relationship with the individual customer support person, so whether they are lying or telling the truth is irrelevant to the customer -- they do have a business relationship with the company (a single actor, with multiple agents) and the company can easily tell lies via these agents. If the above narrative is correct, the company did very likely tell a lie since the fact that the customer's data was recoverable was probably known by the company and also the company likely actively worked to make the opposite of this known via their agents.
  • wahern 8y ago
    > This shields them from individual liability That's... ambiguous. Agents aren't liable for contractual violations, but agents are typically liable for torts. Liability depends on exactly what the employee did. AFAIU, theoretically an employee committing a tort could be liable personally as well as the employer; and if service is disrupted the employer could be contractually liable.
  • notatcomputer68 8y ago
    That way of looking at it - that the company is lying but the individual is not - is fascinating to me.
• cwkoss 8y ago
  A company is liable for its agent's false statements.