35 ms·
Well, no - this data could be relevant ten years from now, if they’re accused of allowing an underage model after the fact. They need this data to protect them
by commandlinefan 7y ago
Well, no - this data could be relevant ten years from now, if they’re accused of allowing an underage model after the fact. They need this data to protect themselves, and they need to have it accessible for the rest of their lives.
- zerkten 7y agoIsn't there a better solution involving offline storage? Keeping the data online is likely exposing it to insider threats as well.
- eberkund 7y agoIsn't there a statuate of limitations?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- peterwwillis 7y agoThere are many, but capital offenses have no limitation, and there are many potential capital offenses. However, that shouldn't really be an issue here, because any business can commit a capital offense, but we don't require every business to record every bit of information about everything they do in perpetuity just because they might commit a capital offense one day. Innocent until proven guilty.
- dragonwriter 7y agoI think that there is a limit on the required period of record retention but I keep failing to find it. But I don't think it is short, and it at least extends as long as you are selling the material to which it relates, since it is expressly illegal to sell depictions without the records.
- enraged_camel 7y agoThis is quite incorrect. Most jurisdictions have record retention policies that explicitly state that you're allowed to dispose records after a certain period of time (usually based on record type). After that, even if the record would be relevant to a case, you cannot be held liable for having disposed of it. source: i work in this field
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]